Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
The Rwanda policy could work to stop the boats is to promptly deport everyone, those without valid asylum claims and those with them.
That's what Australia did to stop the boats after a lot of drownings in their waters sparked action. Those who came via boat would be sent elsewhere, simply having a valid claim wouldn't then see them brought back, they'd be allowed to settle where they were sent instead or go on somewhere else if they wanted to do that.
There should be safe and humanitarian routes to claim asylum or migrate that do not entail risky dinghy crossing or paying people smugglers to do so.
Top Gear axed. Maybe they could spend the money on the BBC Singers instead.
Top Gear was a massive net income for the BBC* - for overseas TV rights, overseas format rights, books, magazines, DVDs, Youtube channel etc.
*BBC Studios. The commercial arm of the Corporation, rather than the BBC itself.
The ratings for the main TV show have been falling since they changed the presenters, and the current lineup is one idiot, one cricketer, and one car journalist. And now they’ve put someone in the hospital, again. It might be done for good this time.
I've never seen the fucking thing apart from bits on flights but I feel like automotive YouTube has rendered it pointless.
Yes I know I am an automotive YouTuber, but when I say that I agree I am not talking about my amateur stuff. There is some truly brilliant stuff made on YouTube, and the ideas tend to be head and shoulders above the tired "haven't I seen this before" japes on Top Gear.
I actually thought the current presenter line up was decent. But the format is well past it and I've found it increasingly hard to justify watching the thing knowing there are no new ideas. Best to let it quietly drop. Rory Reid was better on YouTube than on the show. Chris Harris the same...
Initial 'new' crew with Chris Evans was a disaster. Did the BBC think Evans was actually a popular likeable person? Epic myopia.
The current three have almost gelled, but you still get the impression that Paddy and Freddy would go to the pub together, but not with Harris.
Chris Evans was very popular and a genuine petrolhead. It didn't work, though and Matt le Blanc didn't help.
Evans was, and still is, popular. But not in Top Gear. Just putting a popular personality into a pre existing format doesn’t mean it will work.
Is he though? Really? Maybe its just me, but I cannot stand him.
My Mom is the same. Can’t stand him.
His BBC Radio 2 breakfast show was a success and his Virgin Radio one is too.
I thought we had decided not to go over the trans debate today on PB but I believe it's always better to try to reconcile with family members.
Top Gear axed. Maybe they could spend the money on the BBC Singers instead.
Top Gear was a massive net income for the BBC* - for overseas TV rights, overseas format rights, books, magazines, DVDs, Youtube channel etc.
*BBC Studios. The commercial arm of the Corporation, rather than the BBC itself.
The ratings for the main TV show have been falling since they changed the presenters, and the current lineup is one idiot, one cricketer, and one car journalist. And now they’ve put someone in the hospital, again. It might be done for good this time.
I've never seen the fucking thing apart from bits on flights but I feel like automotive YouTube has rendered it pointless.
Yes I know I am an automotive YouTuber, but when I say that I agree I am not talking about my amateur stuff. There is some truly brilliant stuff made on YouTube, and the ideas tend to be head and shoulders above the tired "haven't I seen this before" japes on Top Gear.
I actually thought the current presenter line up was decent. But the format is well past it and I've found it increasingly hard to justify watching the thing knowing there are no new ideas. Best to let it quietly drop. Rory Reid was better on YouTube than on the show. Chris Harris the same...
Initial 'new' crew with Chris Evans was a disaster. Did the BBC think Evans was actually a popular likeable person? Epic myopia.
The current three have almost gelled, but you still get the impression that Paddy and Freddy would go to the pub together, but not with Harris.
Chris Evans was very popular and a genuine petrolhead. It didn't work, though and Matt le Blanc didn't help.
Evans was, and still is, popular. But not in Top Gear. Just putting a popular personality into a pre existing format doesn’t mean it will work.
Is he though? Really? Maybe its just me, but I cannot stand him.
My Mom is the same. Can’t stand him.
His BBC Radio 2 breakfast show was a success and his Virgin Radio one is too.
I thought we had decided not to go over the trans debate today on PB but I believe it's always better to try to reconcile with family members.
Meta post:
If that above post doesn't get the best post on PB for all time award then I'm leaving.
On the whole, I would not say that doctors in the US operate in a free market. In free markets, you expect open competition on price and quality, but that doesn't happen in most areas of medicine here.
There are exception, notably cosmetic surgery. I regularly see ads -- on TV -- for doctors offering to remove large amounts of belly fat. (And blush a little at some of the pictures they show me.)
In contrast, dentists in the US are much more likely to compete on price, openly. I regularly receive postcards from a local practice, offering free teeth cleaning, and the like, and have seen ads for low-priced dentures and implants.
In 2022, almost half of small boat arrivals were from these 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%), as shown in Figure 4. Albanians were more prominent from July to September 2022, whereas Afghans became more prominent from October to December 2022.
The majority of small boat arrivals claim asylum. In 2022, 90% (40,302 of 44,666 arrivals) claimed asylum or were recorded as a dependant on an asylum application. However, small boat arrivals account for less than half (45%) of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2022.
Most asylum claims from small boat arrivals are still awaiting a decision; more recent periods will naturally have a higher proportion of asylum applications awaiting a decision, as less time has passed to allow for applications to be processed. 97% (34,793) of small boat asylum applications in the latest year, or 83% (56,883) of all small boat asylum applications since 2018, are awaiting a decision.
Trouble is that quite a bit of what is known doesn't fit the narrative.
Based on what's known (and I don't know the answer to this) what is the proportion for each sex?
You'd expect based on pure need that a majority should rightly be female, but given other selection criteria is at play like who is prepared to jeopardise their safety on a dinghy, or who is prepared to pay people smugglers, that the opposite could be the case.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
It seems their is an uptick for Sunak and his party but a long way to go
The selective use of opinion polls? Hmmm. Perhaps you could again give us some definitive voting intention from "North Wales Polling".
Edit; I note, in defending your position you didn't add the Yougov to the other two favourable for the Conservatives polls.
A careful analysis of all opinion polls may suggest that LAB is currently ahead but this does not guarantee that they will get an overall majority at the next GE.
Swingback, to at least some extent is inevitable, particularly when closer to the vote the DK's swing back to their historical party of choice.
Current polls tell us no more than two key features regarding Lab and Con. Labour are currently attracting around 45% of voters and the trend is that the Conservatives are improving, albeit very slowly. By the time of the next election at the current attrition rate of circa 1% point per month, by Autumn 2024 the Conservatives could be between 1 and 5 points ahead. Clearly some black swan events could ratchet the gap down more quickly. A Johnson return, or a Sunak/Johnson victory in Ukraine?
My view is the next election could well be a 1992 redux. That is no more than a hunch, and at the moment at least, if we are basing our analysis on all the evidence available, it points to the complete opposite.
If LAB do the big comeback in Scotland which currently seems entirely plausible then a 4% lead in the national vote may be enough for a (very small) LAB overall majority.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
It seems their is an uptick for Sunak and his party but a long way to go
The selective use of opinion polls? Hmmm. Perhaps you could again give us some definitive voting intention from "North Wales Polling".
Edit; I note, in defending your position you didn't add the Yougov to the other two favourable for the Conservatives polls.
A careful analysis of all opinion polls may suggest that LAB is currently ahead but this does not guarantee that they will get an overall majority at the next GE.
Swingback, to at least some extent is inevitable, particularly when closer to the vote the DK's swing back to their historical party of choice.
Current polls tell us no more than two key features regarding Lab and Con. Labour are currently attracting around 45% of voters and the trend is that the Conservatives are improving, albeit very slowly. By the time of the next election at the current attrition rate of circa 1% point per month, by Autumn 2024 the Conservatives could be between 1 and 5 points ahead. Clearly some black swan events could ratchet the gap down more quickly. A Johnson return, or a Sunak/Johnson victory in Ukraine?
My view is the next election could well be a 1992 redux. That is no more than a hunch, and at the moment at least, if we are basing our analysis on all the evidence available, it points to the complete opposite.
If LAB do the big comeback in Scotland which currently seems entirely plausible then a 4% lead in the national vote may be enough for a (very small) LAB overall majority.
I don't see the SNP imploding (anymore than they already have done). Although if I was a voter in Scotland, as a social liberal, I would find voting for a party led by Kate Forbes extremely testing.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Indeed, as I posted earlier he is less popular than Sarwar and Starmer in Scotland, less popular than Forbes too and far less popular than Sturgeon was
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots...
On the evidence of recent incumbents, it's hard not to believe that the case.
Kate Forbes would probably be the best option, which no doubt means she won't win.
I think the most disturbing thing for the SNP is how brutally this has shown they are not blessed with good options.
Forbes is divisive and while clearly talented and intelligent is still very inexperienced. Regan is the SNP's answer to Enoch Powell in 1965. Yousaf is, well, fucking hell.
The absence of Robertson and Flynn has made this quite painful to watch at times. Whatever the outcome, I can't see it being an improvement on what they had before - which was not quite enough to get them Sindy.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
I don't believe everyone at the Home Office is genuinely useless. Looking at recent Home Secretaries... well, yes, actually, I can believe they are genuine idiots! Patel and Braverman couldn't even stick to the ministerial code. I am baffled why they are in Cabinet.
The large backlog in processing claims hasn't been there since time immemorial. It's a recent development. That's happened under Conservative governments. Before rushing to embrace some radical option like the Rwanda plan, what about trying something simpler? Vote out the Conservatives.
In 2022, almost half of small boat arrivals were from these 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%), as shown in Figure 4. Albanians were more prominent from July to September 2022, whereas Afghans became more prominent from October to December 2022.
The majority of small boat arrivals claim asylum. In 2022, 90% (40,302 of 44,666 arrivals) claimed asylum or were recorded as a dependant on an asylum application. However, small boat arrivals account for less than half (45%) of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2022.
Most asylum claims from small boat arrivals are still awaiting a decision; more recent periods will naturally have a higher proportion of asylum applications awaiting a decision, as less time has passed to allow for applications to be processed. 97% (34,793) of small boat asylum applications in the latest year, or 83% (56,883) of all small boat asylum applications since 2018, are awaiting a decision.
Trouble is that quite a bit of what is known doesn't fit the narrative.
Based on what's known (and I don't know the answer to this) what is the proportion for each sex?
You'd expect based on pure need that a majority should rightly be female, but given other selection criteria is at play like who is prepared to jeopardise their safety on a dinghy, or who is prepared to pay people smugglers, that the opposite could be the case.
One of the data tables in the link breaks down the numbers by sex, and yes, the small boat people are overwhelmingly male.
The trouble is that the lack of safe routes for asylum claims from most countries means that the ones taking unsafe routes will be the physically stronger ones and the people more likely to be the neediest of the needy will be scared off. And there is a bit of the old ducking stool logic here; if people are able to cross in boats, they're not truly in need, and if they are truly in need, that's a shame but it's too late now.
To prove you are British or Irish, and therefore not be subject to this process, you need to show a Passport or a P45 (document from last employer) and birth certificate.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots...
On the evidence of recent incumbents, it's hard not to believe that the case.
It's very hard to understand how everyone at the DfE could actually be completely stupid.
But it's even harder to explain their increasingly bizarre actions if they're not.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Why are they so amazed?
Generalising about the SNP members - they are well left of centre and seem to me to place almost as much importance on this aspect of their identity as supporting the nationalist agenda.
Yousaf is the most left wing of the three candidates. Therefore Yousaf wins.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots...
On the evidence of recent incumbents, it's hard not to believe that the case.
It's very hard to understand how everyone at the DfE could actually be completely stupid.
But it's even harder to explain their increasingly bizarre actions if they're not.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Why are they so amazed?
Generalising about the SNP members - they are well left of centre and seem to me to place almost as much importance on this aspect of their identity as supporting the nationalist agenda.
Yousaf is the most left wing of the three candidates. Therefore Yousaf wins.
There is a logic to that.
It's the logic that called Liz Truss' election as Tory leader.
The only snag is, compared to Yousaf she's almost brilliant.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Co-operation with France and an investment of time and money into getting the current system working. These things don't have the charisma of "Rwanda!" but I think they should be given a whirl.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.
If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.
What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
That's a reasonable point Max in general.
But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.
That's f***ed up is it not?
Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?
Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.
Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.
What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
But it's not a free market, there has been surplus demand for doctors for going on 30 years and yet supply of doctors has been held down artificially by the state.
I've already said it many times, it's time for the government to lift the cap on medical school places so universities and hospitals can train as many doctors as are necessary and then we'll see what the NPV of doctoring actually is, if it turns out we train too many we end up becoming a next exporter of doctors for a while until the NPV rises again.
The problem there is that a medical degree costs more than £9250 a year to teach - so how do you square that circle?
Put the fees up to actual price and write the loans off after 10 years NHS service. For people who leave the country sell the debt to collection agencies who will chase them to whatever country they're in and also agree deals with the likely destinations to collect loan repayments from salaries as part of double taxation treaties we already have.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Why are they so amazed?
Generalising about the SNP members - they are well left of centre and seem to me to place almost as much importance on this aspect of their identity as supporting the nationalist agenda.
Yousaf is the most left wing of the three candidates. Therefore Yousaf wins.
There is a logic to that.
It's the logic that called Liz Truss' election as Tory leader.
The only snag is, compared to Yousaf she's almost brilliant.
I thought Yusuf was quite brilliant when he was Cat Stevens.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
I would be surprised if Holland wasn't jam packed with lefty human rights lawyers and do-gooders.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
The Netherlands? A hot bed of liberals? The sort of place that has legalised drugs and prostitution? Where they're mad keen on the European Court of Human Rights?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
I guess you’ve never heard of The Hague and how it inspires generations of Netherlanders to protect human rights.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
If decade after decade of being in power authoritarians are still moaning about lefty lawyers, why do they never ever apportion the blame on the people they vote in who write the actual laws that the lawyers use?
The Dutch legislature is simply creating better legislation than ours.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
You do find time for the Mail in your busy life then?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
I feel particularly strongly about this dangerous trope of "lefty human rights lawyers". I had a personal twitter account that described me as "Head of Employment and Immigration Law" at my firm. I had to close it when I started getting threats. The malicious, lazy, stereotyping of people like me by the likes of @MaxPB who throw around these stereotypes without a care in the world is going to get someone hurt. Don't like the law, Max? Fine, then get the Government to change it. Don't like "do gooders"? Fine, be a "do badder" to even things out.
Anyway, The Netherlands, no liberal lawyers? FFS...
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
They probably don't have an army of lefty human rights lawyers and do gooders blocking the system up with countless appeals and delaying tactics to block deportation.
You do find time for the Mail in your busy life then?
I believe he's just been on vacation and discussing politics with Albanian taxi drivers M5S-supporting Italians, so there may be other explanations
ETA: Altough even M5S seem to manage to do more than just grandstand about immigration
What else are woke lefty academics in the social sciences supposed to do except go extreme woke?
Fields medal also in danger, of course
ETA: lucky they don't do real stuff like computer science: 'slave' and 'master' would blow their minds
They've been on the banned list for ages, along with blacklist and whitelist.
Yeah, I know - I was party to a hotly debated conversation about removal arund 15 years ago in one organisation. They also were clearly problematic to be fair, at least master and slave. Blacklist and whitelist more inferred than direct meaning, but there are other better terms.
I'm - how can I put it? - less convinced on 'fieldwork'
What else are woke lefty academics in the social sciences supposed to do except go extreme woke?
Fields medal also in danger, of course
ETA: lucky they don't do real stuff like computer science: 'slave' and 'master' would blow their minds
They've been on the banned list for ages, along with blacklist and whitelist.
Those arguments really annoy me. No one ever seems to want to accept that white as good and black and bad has no roots in racism. Totally different origin, and you can see that by virtue of some of the cultures that share the concept. And don’t get started on the people who seem to think master/slave wasn’t a concept 4000 years ago and before.
Seattle Times ($) - WA Supreme Court upholds capital gains tax
The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the state’s capital gains tax, cementing a long-sought victory for state Democrats and nudging the state’s tax system in a more progressive direction.
The court ruled 7-2 to uphold the tax. Its opinion was released Friday morning.
Democrats passed the measure, which applies a 7% tax only to profits over $250,000, in 2021, with plans to spend the revenue on early childhood education programs. The tax applies to the sale of financial assets, such as stocks and bonds.
It was expected to initially bring in about $500 million a year in revenue.
A bevy of challengers rose up, filing suit to try to block the new law, arguing, among other things, that the law is a tax on income and violates the state constitution’s requirement that taxes be applied uniformly across the same class of property.
Supporters have argued the tax is better understood as an excise tax, a tax on a good or service, and that it is not a tax on income or property because it applies to sales or transfers of assets.“Because the capital gains tax is an excise tax under Washington law, it is not subject to the uniformity and levy requirements” of the state Constitution, Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the court.
A Douglas County judge last year ruled for the challengers, finding the tax unconstitutional because it taxed capital gains above $250,000 at 7% and gains below that level not at all.
The Supreme Court then agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, bypassing an intermediate court of appeals.
And, late last year, the Supreme Court allowed the state to begin collecting the tax while it considered the case. The court heard oral arguments in the case in January and the state began collecting the tax last month.
Progressives have long lamented the state’s regressive tax structure, which depends heavily on sales and business taxes. Washington is one of a handful of states without an income tax. Due to that combination, people who make less money pay a higher share of their income in taxes.
State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, in his brief to the Supreme Court defending the tax, called it “the most progressive change in Washington tax policy in generations.”
What else are woke lefty academics in the social sciences supposed to do except go extreme woke?
Fields medal also in danger, of course
ETA: lucky they don't do real stuff like computer science: 'slave' and 'master' would blow their minds
They've been on the banned list for ages, along with blacklist and whitelist.
But "Black Friday" is OK?
What about Blackmail?
Asking for a friend with relatives both sides of the border and an ambiguous relationship with the laws of property.
There's a film/TV show (I forget where saw it) where a black male is blackmailing (well, coercing at least) someone and when she(?) says 'blackmail' the black male says "are you referring to me or my proposal" or similar
Social Work department at a university in California is too woke shocker.
Next we will be told that a Taliban unit in Kabul is hostile to women and their education.
Neither have much implication for Joe/Jane Average in the UK.
If we're trash posting along those lines... To those shocked that a FL principal was fired after their students "classical education" students were shown the statue of David - this is a Hillsdale curriculum school. What Trump's 1776 Commission wanted for the US - the quid pro quo for a 2nd term. https://mobile.twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1639261041187237889
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
Social Work department at a university in California is too woke shocker.
Next we will be told that a Taliban unit in Kabul is hostile to women and their education.
Neither have much implication for Joe/Jane Average in the UK.
If we're trash posting along those lines... To those shocked that a FL principal was fired after their students "classical education" students were shown the statue of David - this is a Hillsdale curriculum school. What Trump's 1776 Commission wanted for the US - the quid pro quo for a 2nd term. https://mobile.twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1639261041187237889
Seems rather 'earnest' but language is important and should sometimes evolve. I had a boss once - at a bank - and whenever he tasked somebody with finding out more about something or other he'd refer to it as "going down the hole". I never enjoyed hearing that, esp when directed at me with my coal mining heritage. I was pleased when he moved on.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
This is our problem we underfund everything because if we funded it all properly the tax take would have to be enormous. The other alternative is fund what we deem important properly and cut other budgets to match but then we get everyone screaming about how can we cut funding to the arts/libraries/nhs/parole service etc.
We cannot squeeze out much more in tax We can't borrow to fund everything So either you carry on with everything underfunded or you cut some stuff we currently do
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
This is our problem we underfund everything because if we funded it all properly the tax take would have to be enormous. The other alternative is fund what we deem important properly and cut other budgets to match but then we get everyone screaming about how can we cut funding to the arts/libraries/nhs/parole service etc.
We cannot squeeze out much more in tax We can't borrow to fund everything So either you carry on with everything underfunded or you cut some stuff we currently do
At some point soon, there’s going to have to be a zero-based spending review. Government, and Opposition, need to decide whether or not it will be at a time of their own choosing, or something forced on them from outside.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
This is our problem we underfund everything because if we funded it all properly the tax take would have to be enormous. The other alternative is fund what we deem important properly and cut other budgets to match but then we get everyone screaming about how can we cut funding to the arts/libraries/nhs/parole service etc.
We cannot squeeze out much more in tax We can't borrow to fund everything So either you carry on with everything underfunded or you cut some stuff we currently do
If you fund it properly and process cases quicker, you save money on housing and looking after applicants, those with valid claims can leave the system and get a job, contributing to the economy and paying tax, and those without, you can deport them.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
In certain bits of Scotland you get some sectarianism - of a rude but generally not lethal form.
Where in England and Wales does anyone actually give a crap what your religion is? Apart from the usual Nazis, or course.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Boris Johnson would lose his Uxbridge seat “no question” if he was forced to face voters in a by-election, a Tory polling expert has said.
Lord Hayward, the Conservative peer and elections guru, said that if a by-election was held now, the former prime minister would “face defeat to Labour” based on current numbers.
However, he said Johnson could be “saved” if Labour and the Liberal Democrats fight between themselves.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
On a vaguely similar subject, my 8 year old has just returned home and earnestly announced that at her school they're only allowing people with dark skin in now. Which isn't technically true, AFAIK. It's just the understandable conclusion she's reached based on the empirical evidence.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
And it also encourages working with and learning from other faith groups at the same time, non Christian religions will also be represented at the coronation of a British monarch for the first time
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
47% of the UK population are still Christian
LOL If you think 47% of the population are going to indulge in 'spiritual preparation' for the coronation, you're worthy of a C of E bishopric yourself.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And yet other countries do manage to fund all sorts of things properly via the government without their population revolting at the taxes they pay.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And yet other countries do manage to fund all sorts of things properly via the government without their population revolting at the taxes they pay.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
And equally we can blow large sums of money on useless stuff, without any restraint (see Ajax).
Boris Johnson would lose his Uxbridge seat “no question” if he was forced to face voters in a by-election, a Tory polling expert has said.
Lord Hayward, the Conservative peer and elections guru, said that if a by-election was held now, the former prime minister would “face defeat to Labour” based on current numbers.
However, he said Johnson could be “saved” if Labour and the Liberal Democrats fight between themselves.
I would sooo love to see him lose his seat. I normally try to avoid the vice of schadenfreude, but in Johnson's case I will make an exception. No humiliation is great enough for the worst PM of all time.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
Defender of Faiths rather than Defender of THE Faith?
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And yet other countries do manage to fund all sorts of things properly via the government without their population revolting at the taxes they pay.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
Usually, resource allocation to a problem is a bit of a bathtub curve - too little and the costs rise steeply (delays etc). At the other end you have too many resources to be used efficiently, and the costs rise again.
It is pretty clear that the UK immigration system is in the former state.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
Boris Johnson would lose his Uxbridge seat “no question” if he was forced to face voters in a by-election, a Tory polling expert has said.
Lord Hayward, the Conservative peer and elections guru, said that if a by-election was held now, the former prime minister would “face defeat to Labour” based on current numbers.
However, he said Johnson could be “saved” if Labour and the Liberal Democrats fight between themselves.
I would sooo love to see him lose his seat. I normally try to avoid the vice of schadenfreude, but in Johnson's case I will make an exception. No humiliation is great enough for the worst PM of all time.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
More weren't coming when we didn't have the backlog, so I don't see why getting rid of the backlog would encourage more to come.
Boris Johnson would lose his Uxbridge seat “no question” if he was forced to face voters in a by-election, a Tory polling expert has said.
Lord Hayward, the Conservative peer and elections guru, said that if a by-election was held now, the former prime minister would “face defeat to Labour” based on current numbers.
However, he said Johnson could be “saved” if Labour and the Liberal Democrats fight between themselves.
I would sooo love to see him lose his seat. I normally try to avoid the vice of schadenfreude, but in Johnson's case I will make an exception. No humiliation is great enough for the worst PM of all time.
If he does stand in 2024, I wonder what would be better?
A 2020's Martin Bell to stand against him as a Man In A White Suit?
Or losing to some nonentity local councillor standing for Labour?
It seems their is an uptick for Sunak and his party but a long way to go
The selective use of opinion polls? Hmmm. Perhaps you could again give us some definitive voting intention from "North Wales Polling".
Edit; I note, in defending your position you didn't add the Yougov to the other two favourable for the Conservatives polls.
A careful analysis of all opinion polls may suggest that LAB is currently ahead but this does not guarantee that they will get an overall majority at the next GE.
Swingback, to at least some extent is inevitable, particularly when closer to the vote the DK's swing back to their historical party of choice.
Current polls tell us no more than two key features regarding Lab and Con. Labour are currently attracting around 45% of voters and the trend is that the Conservatives are improving, albeit very slowly. By the time of the next election at the current attrition rate of circa 1% point per month, by Autumn 2024 the Conservatives could be between 1 and 5 points ahead. Clearly some black swan events could ratchet the gap down more quickly. A Johnson return, or a Sunak/Johnson victory in Ukraine?
My view is the next election could well be a 1992 redux. That is no more than a hunch, and at the moment at least, if we are basing our analysis on all the evidence available, it points to the complete opposite.
If LAB do the big comeback in Scotland which currently seems entirely plausible then a 4% lead in the national vote may be enough for a (very small) LAB overall majority.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
The CoE is utterly crap at retention and recruitment. Both of clergy and laity. Why should they suddenly get a clue?
One local by-election last night in Northamptonshire, which may be of interest!
The results for Rushden South ward by-election have been announced and the results are: Melanie Coleman – Conservative – 1,210 Chris Ashton – Labour - 638 Cassandra Blythe - Liberal Democrat - 157 Dave Merlane - Breakthrough Party - 120 Will Morris - Green Party - 93
I see the Breakthrough Party broke through to manage second from bottom.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
I very much hope Scotland is not racist in an "institutional" way, like the Met Police, but there are plenty of racists in Scotland, some on the grounds of skin colour and many on their irrational hatred of a rather diverse group of people they call "the English". This Anglophobia is probably a large driver of the Scottish Nationalist movement.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
Comments
And my point still stands about Sunak and the conservative party
That's what Australia did to stop the boats after a lot of drownings in their waters sparked action. Those who came via boat would be sent elsewhere, simply having a valid claim wouldn't then see them brought back, they'd be allowed to settle where they were sent instead or go on somewhere else if they wanted to do that.
There should be safe and humanitarian routes to claim asylum or migrate that do not entail risky dinghy crossing or paying people smugglers to do so.
If that above post doesn't get the best post on PB for all time award then I'm leaving.
Edit: I'm not, but really.
There are exception, notably cosmetic surgery. I regularly see ads -- on TV -- for doctors offering to remove large amounts of belly fat. (And blush a little at some of the pictures they show me.)
In contrast, dentists in the US are much more likely to compete on price, openly. I regularly receive postcards from a local practice, offering free teeth cleaning, and the like, and have seen ads for low-priced dentures and implants.
You'd expect based on pure need that a majority should rightly be female, but given other selection criteria is at play like who is prepared to jeopardise their safety on a dinghy, or who is prepared to pay people smugglers, that the opposite could be the case.
I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist.
If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
It is far from a complete solution, but I think it does help with the problems of illegal immigration.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11898359/King-Charles-postpone-trip-France-amid-violent-protests.html#comments
Forbes is divisive and while clearly talented and intelligent is still very inexperienced. Regan is the SNP's answer to Enoch Powell in 1965. Yousaf is, well, fucking hell.
The absence of Robertson and Flynn has made this quite painful to watch at times. Whatever the outcome, I can't see it being an improvement on what they had before - which was not quite enough to get them Sindy.
The large backlog in processing claims hasn't been there since time immemorial. It's a recent development. That's happened under Conservative governments. Before rushing to embrace some radical option like the Rwanda plan, what about trying something simpler? Vote out the Conservatives.
The trouble is that the lack of safe routes for asylum claims from most countries means that the ones taking unsafe routes will be the physically stronger ones and the people more likely to be the neediest of the needy will be scared off. And there is a bit of the old ducking stool logic here; if people are able to cross in boats, they're not truly in need, and if they are truly in need, that's a shame but it's too late now.
Full details:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide/an-employers-guide-to-right-to-work-checks-6-april-2022-accessible-version
To prove you are British or Irish, and therefore not be subject to this process, you need to show a Passport or a P45 (document from last employer) and birth certificate.
But it's even harder to explain their increasingly bizarre actions if they're not.
Generalising about the SNP members - they are well left of centre and seem to me to place almost as much importance on this aspect of their identity as supporting the nationalist agenda.
Yousaf is the most left wing of the three candidates. Therefore Yousaf wins.
It's the logic that called Liz Truss' election as Tory leader.
The only snag is, compared to Yousaf she's almost brilliant.
https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/status/1612635584539033603/photo/1
The Dutch legislature is simply creating better legislation than ours.
Anyway, The Netherlands, no liberal lawyers? FFS...
Next we will be told that a Taliban unit in Kabul is hostile to women and their education.
Neither have much implication for Joe/Jane Average in the UK.
What else are woke lefty academics in the social sciences supposed to do except go extreme woke?
Fields medal also in danger, of course
ETA: lucky they don't do real stuff like computer science: 'slave' and 'master' would blow their minds
ETA: Altough even M5S seem to manage to do more than just grandstand about immigration
I'm - how can I put it? - less convinced on 'fieldwork'
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/07/04/007227/twitter-engineers-replacing-racially-loaded-tech-terms-like-master-slave
Not even allowed blacklists and whitelists any more either.
Seattle Times ($) - WA Supreme Court upholds capital gains tax
The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the state’s capital gains tax, cementing a long-sought victory for state Democrats and nudging the state’s tax system in a more progressive direction.
The court ruled 7-2 to uphold the tax. Its opinion was released Friday morning.
Democrats passed the measure, which applies a 7% tax only to profits over $250,000, in 2021, with plans to spend the revenue on early childhood education programs. The tax applies to the sale of financial assets, such as stocks and bonds.
It was expected to initially bring in about $500 million a year in revenue.
A bevy of challengers rose up, filing suit to try to block the new law, arguing, among other things, that the law is a tax on income and violates the state constitution’s requirement that taxes be applied uniformly across the same class of property.
Supporters have argued the tax is better understood as an excise tax, a tax on a good or service, and that it is not a tax on income or property because it applies to sales or transfers of assets.“Because the capital gains tax is an excise tax under Washington law, it is not subject to the uniformity and levy requirements” of the state Constitution, Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the court.
A Douglas County judge last year ruled for the challengers, finding the tax unconstitutional because it taxed capital gains above $250,000 at 7% and gains below that level not at all.
The Supreme Court then agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, bypassing an intermediate court of appeals.
And, late last year, the Supreme Court allowed the state to begin collecting the tax while it considered the case. The court heard oral arguments in the case in January and the state began collecting the tax last month.
Progressives have long lamented the state’s regressive tax structure, which depends heavily on sales and business taxes. Washington is one of a handful of states without an income tax. Due to that combination, people who make less money pay a higher share of their income in taxes.
State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, in his brief to the Supreme Court defending the tax, called it “the most progressive change in Washington tax policy in generations.”
Asking for a friend with relatives both sides of the border and an ambiguous relationship with the laws of property.
ETA: Ah, it's Yes Minister, of course (and not 'she', but Hacker - https://twitter.com/soliloquyme/status/905827746961657856 )
To those shocked that a FL principal was fired after their students "classical education" students were shown the statue of David - this is a Hillsdale curriculum school. What Trump's 1776 Commission wanted for the US - the quid pro quo for a 2nd term.
https://mobile.twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1639261041187237889
Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCkwMFoQno0
This is our problem we underfund everything because if we funded it all properly the tax take would have to be enormous. The other alternative is fund what we deem important properly and cut other budgets to match but then we get everyone screaming about how can we cut funding to the arts/libraries/nhs/parole service etc.
We cannot squeeze out much more in tax
We can't borrow to fund everything
So either you carry on with everything underfunded or you cut some stuff we currently do
Long backlogs cost money.
Where in England and Wales does anyone actually give a crap what your religion is? Apart from the usual Nazis, or course.
A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-charles-coronation-prayers-church-england-ceremony-2023-rspsrf8pl
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/24/france-protests-why-setting-fire-e-scooters/
Lord Hayward, the Conservative peer and elections guru, said that if a by-election was held now, the former prime minister would “face defeat to Labour” based on current numbers.
However, he said Johnson could be “saved” if Labour and the Liberal Democrats fight between themselves.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-partygate-latest-news-rishi-sunak-tory-party-live-2023-w2m6sd0bw
Which isn't technically true, AFAIK. It's just the understandable conclusion she's reached based on the empirical evidence.
https://twitter.com/eljmayes/status/1639289704897032193/photo/1
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
One local by-election last night in Northamptonshire, which may be of interest!
Isn’t that his job?
If you think 47% of the population are going to indulge in 'spiritual preparation' for the coronation, you're worthy of a C of E bishopric yourself.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
It is pretty clear that the UK immigration system is in the former state.
It really is a very odd idea.
A 2020's Martin Bell to stand against him as a Man In A White Suit?
Or losing to some nonentity local councillor standing for Labour?
Melanie Coleman – Conservative – 1,210
Chris Ashton – Labour - 638
Cassandra Blythe - Liberal Democrat - 157
Dave Merlane - Breakthrough Party - 120
Will Morris - Green Party - 93
I see the Breakthrough Party broke through to manage second from bottom.