Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
My suggestion.
(a) Decide what fraction F of GDP you wish to spend on assisting migrants/refugees/asylum seekers. This gives a budget £Y
(b) Estimate how much it costs to provide emotional support, language assistance, housing, education etc for a refugee/migrant. Let us say on average it is £X . Compute Y/X to give a number . That is the number of refugees/migrants the Government can reasonably support each year. That is all the Government should admit (so withdraw from international conventions).
(c) Any other migrant who wishes to settle needs to find a supporter who is willing to put up £X. So, the supporter could be an individual, a community group, a church, whatever. In this way, individuals or groups of individuals can also take personal responsibility, if they feel so inclined.
(d) People who arrive on boats have to wait until either the Government supports them (via b) or an individual supports them (via c).
(e) The fraction F is open to debate at election time and parties can put forward their manifestos on how large or small F should be.
The terms were: humane, lawful, electorally possible. This of course fails under current law. And would fail electorally with regard to Ukraine!
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
This all boils down to "get many more refugees". Whilst that might get your vote, I'm not sure that's true of the country as a whole.
Not necessarily. Some of the people arriving by boat would opt for a safer legal route if it were available. An asylum system that actually worked would be a deterrent for some with a dodgy claim. But if it means slightly higher numbers but a much bigger share of valid claims then I'd be okay with that. We've got labour shortage and refugees are often highly motivated and able people. A lot of people have views similar to mine, put probably not many are potential Tory voters.
The share of claims that are valid, we have been told, is already exceptionally high. Therefore "deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid" is pretty similar to "accept asylum claims more quickly".
I have some sympathy for the labour shortage point - I don't think the electorate as a whole does, though.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Make the employers (who generally are savagely exploiting the victims) of undocumented immigrants liable. As in directors personal property level liable.
Fines of £100K per offence. Give half to the undocumented worker, plus indefinite leave to remain - if they give evidence that leads to convictions.
Do the same for people deliberately paying below minimum wage.
Both will reach 0% a week after the first prosecution.
But that would mean punishing wealthy powerful people, and that would never do.
It’s not the people that you think are doing it, who are doing it.
If an ethnic group is having its members abused within a society, the abusers are often from that group.
A particular favourite is bringing people in who don’t speak the host language (English in this case) since they are easier to control.
Remember the Chinese cockle pickers who died on that beach? Interest collapsed when it was revealed that the people controlling them were Chinese.
During COVID, conditions in some of factories around Leicester were revealed - someone actually said “If we forced them to pay minimum wage, they would close.”
Try this for fun - merry your MP and propose it. The reaction will be of interest.
'merry your MP' ?!?
Strange out correct - find your MP...
EDIT: One told me it was racist policy. Because it would prevent undocumented people getting jobs.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
My suggestion.
(a) Decide what fraction F of GDP you wish to spend on assisting migrants/refugees/asylum seekers. This gives a budget £Y
(b) Estimate how much it costs to provide emotional support, language assistance, housing, education etc for a refugee/migrant. Let us say on average it is £X . Compute Y/X to give a number . That is the number of refugees/migrants the Government can reasonably support each year. That is all the Government should admit (so withdraw from international conventions).
(c) Any other migrant who wishes to settle needs to find a supporter who is willing to put up £X. So, the supporter could be an individual, a community group, a church, whatever. In this way, individuals or groups of individuals can also take personal responsibility, if they feel so inclined.
(d) People who arrive on boats have to wait until either the Government supports them (via b) or an individual supports them (via c).
(e) The fraction F is open to debate at election time and parties can put forward their manifestos on how large or small F should be.
(c) already exists, it's called community sponsorship. I am a member of a group sponsoring a family who arrived this month.
I wasn't aware of that in the UK, but I do know it exists in Canada.
And I do know that in Canada individuals sponsor people they have never met and have no connection with.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
Yes, the suicide rate is much higher as well, and as you say a gun is often the method used. I guess more likely to succeed than overdosing or hanging.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
My suggestion.
(a) Decide what fraction F of GDP you wish to spend on assisting migrants/refugees/asylum seekers. This gives a budget £Y
(b) Estimate how much it costs to provide emotional support, language assistance, housing, education etc for a refugee/migrant. Let us say on average it is £X . Compute Y/X to give a number . That is the number of refugees/migrants the Government can reasonably support each year. That is all the Government should admit (so withdraw from international conventions).
(c) Any other migrant who wishes to settle needs to find a supporter who is willing to put up £X. So, the supporter could be an individual, a community group, a church, whatever. In this way, individuals or groups of individuals can also take personal responsibility, if they feel so inclined.
(d) People who arrive on boats have to wait until either the Government supports them (via b) or an individual supports them (via c).
(e) The fraction F is open to debate at election time and parties can put forward their manifestos on how large or small F should be.
The terms were: humane, lawful, electorally possible. This of course fails under current law. And would fail electorally with regard to Ukraine!
It fails under current law, I agree. The current laws are unworkable.
I am not sure I understand the reference to fails "electorally with regard to Ukraine! " Please provide evidence.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
My suggestion.
(a) Decide what fraction F of GDP you wish to spend on assisting migrants/refugees/asylum seekers. This gives a budget £Y
(b) Estimate how much it costs to provide emotional support, language assistance, housing, education etc for a refugee/migrant. Let us say on average it is £X . Compute Y/X to give a number . That is the number of refugees/migrants the Government can reasonably support each year. That is all the Government should admit (so withdraw from international conventions).
(c) Any other migrant who wishes to settle needs to find a supporter who is willing to put up £X. So, the supporter could be an individual, a community group, a church, whatever. In this way, individuals or groups of individuals can also take personal responsibility, if they feel so inclined.
(d) People who arrive on boats have to wait until either the Government supports them (via b) or an individual supports them (via c).
(e) The fraction F is open to debate at election time and parties can put forward their manifestos on how large or small F should be.
(c) already exists, it's called community sponsorship. I am a member of a group sponsoring a family who arrived this month.
It would be interesting to see kind of resource allocation carried through into all the requirements for modern society.
If the population increases by 100K, we need (roughly) 100K bedrooms. We need schools, hospitals etc.
I am in favour of mass immigration and mass infrastructure. It is institutional racism not to provide the infrastructure to go with the population increase.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
The issue appears to be that it’s increasingly difficult to actually deport anyone, about six people per day on average.
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
It has to be padded becaause the BBC has only bought the rights to show 6(?) minutes per match. Cheaper to pay Lineker £2m than pay £20m for more actual footbal.
The BBC'sfootball offering is seriously compromised.
We ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago. BBC pays £70.5m per year to the Premier League, so MOTD is by far the most expensive programme they produce even before Lineker’s salary.
For comparison, their highest rated show Eastenders costs around £20m per year, and is on three times a week every week.
The interesting thing is that Premier League highlights on free to air television are not on the crown jewels list, so it's not simply a case of being the highest free to air bidder. Quite why they aren't on the list, I don't know.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
The issue appears to be that it’s increasingly difficult to actually deport anyone, about six people per day on average.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
The issue appears to be that it’s increasingly difficult to actually deport anyone, about six people per day on average.
That's partly because they are not processing the claims, which is effectively Conservative Party policy. You can't deport people unless you have established their claim of being in danger is false.
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
Teacher: OK students just wanted you to know that I support you whatever decisions you make about your gender. Student: Thanks - I want to be identified as non-binary Teacher: Well I'm not endorsing that Student (and sane, non-Daily Mail readers): WTF?!
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
It has to be padded becaause the BBC has only bought the rights to show 6(?) minutes per match. Cheaper to pay Lineker £2m than pay £20m for more actual footbal.
The BBC'sfootball offering is seriously compromised.
We ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago. BBC pays £70.5m per year to the Premier League, so MOTD is by far the most expensive programme they produce even before Lineker’s salary.
For comparison, their highest rated show Eastenders costs around £20m per year, and is on three times a week every week.
The interesting thing is that Premier League highlights on free to air television are not on the crown jewels list, so it's not simply a case of being the highest free to air bidder. Quite why they aren't on the list, I don't know.
I suspect it's because the PL tenders FTA highlights without government pressure - they know they need them. I also suspect that the MOTD brand is so strong that the PL might not necessarily go with an ITV or C4 bid even if it were slightly higher. Especially after the debacle of Andy Townsend's Tactics Truck.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
This all boils down to "get many more refugees". Whilst that might get your vote, I'm not sure that's true of the country as a whole.
Not necessarily. Some of the people arriving by boat would opt for a safer legal route if it were available. An asylum system that actually worked would be a deterrent for some with a dodgy claim. But if it means slightly higher numbers but a much bigger share of valid claims then I'd be okay with that. We've got labour shortage and refugees are often highly motivated and able people. A lot of people have views similar to mine, put probably not many are potential Tory voters.
The individual costs for those coming in via a safe route, and those currently detained might be massively different, too.
Refugees allowed to settle and work might be net contributors to the economy overall. Detaining those who aren't is extremely expensive.
That alone isn't an argument for any given policy, but it ought to be included in their assessment.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Pretty much what many in Labour think and want anyway.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
Costs Australian government $AUS 4 million per detainee per year in Nauru. In the UK's case the detainee will have processing and rendering costs before the detention costs in Rwanda.
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
It has to be padded becaause the BBC has only bought the rights to show 6(?) minutes per match. Cheaper to pay Lineker £2m than pay £20m for more actual footbal.
The BBC'sfootball offering is seriously compromised.
We ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago. BBC pays £70.5m per year to the Premier League, so MOTD is by far the most expensive programme they produce even before Lineker’s salary.
For comparison, their highest rated show Eastenders costs around £20m per year, and is on three times a week every week.
The interesting thing is that Premier League highlights on free to air television are not on the crown jewels list, so it's not simply a case of being the highest free to air bidder. Quite why they aren't on the list, I don't know.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
It has to be padded becaause the BBC has only bought the rights to show 6(?) minutes per match. Cheaper to pay Lineker £2m than pay £20m for more actual footbal.
The BBC'sfootball offering is seriously compromised.
We ran the numbers on this a few weeks ago. BBC pays £70.5m per year to the Premier League, so MOTD is by far the most expensive programme they produce even before Lineker’s salary.
For comparison, their highest rated show Eastenders costs around £20m per year, and is on three times a week every week.
The interesting thing is that Premier League highlights on free to air television are not on the crown jewels list, so it's not simply a case of being the highest free to air bidder. Quite why they aren't on the list, I don't know.
I suspect it's because the PL tenders FTA highlights without government pressure - they know they need them. I also suspect that the MOTD brand is so strong that the PL might not necessarily go with an ITV or C4 bid even if it were slightly higher. Especially after the debacle of Andy Townsend's Tactics Truck.
I have fond memories of The Premiership on ITV. Admittedly, that might have something to do with Arsenal winning the league two times out of three (and it really ought to have been three out of three).
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Pretty much what many in Labour think and want anyway.
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
Teacher: OK students just wanted you to know that I support you whatever decisions you make about your gender. Student: Thanks - I want to be identified as non-binary Teacher: Well I'm not endorsing that Student (and sane, non-Daily Mail readers): WTF?!
If you read the article, it bears out some thing that teachers have told me - that some teenagers have created a weird interpretation of trans that changes every 4 minutes.
A good friend had something like this with his daughter. She was going through a very rough patch at the start of being a teenager. One day she declared she was trans. He took the approach of finding the best trick cyclist he could - an expert in the area - who works with her to try and sort out various issues that he (the specialist) could see she had - body acceptance, social etc. The specialist was pro-trans, incidentally and had referred patients to Tavistock etc.
My friend took the approach of saying she could dress how she liked (as long as vaguely you-won't-get-arrested) and you can use any pronouns you like. He also had long chats on the basis of "just tell me - anything".
After about a year, the weekly oscillations subsided. She announced she wasn't trans, after all.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Isn’t it farmers and doctors that stand out in the suicide statistics? Both stressful jobs, but crucially jobs with easy access to a reliable method.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Railways are an interesting one. The rate varies through the year with more people doing it in the Spring and Summer when there's more daylight.
I think opportunity is a big part of it, so I can imagine access to guns does make a difference. That said, I'd be interested to see the figures for other countries with high levels of gun ownership, that don't seem to have nearly as many mass shootings.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
The issue appears to be that it’s increasingly difficult to actually deport anyone, about six people per day on average.
Part of the Rwanda concept is, IIRC, that when faced with Rwanda, a number of those who have "lost" their documents will find them again.
In many cases this won't work, since they have been destroyed.
Presumably someone from, say, Albania, who ends up in Rwanda, might find that the Albanian embassy can get him a new passport to let him go back to that country?
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Railways are an interesting one. The rate varies through the year with more people doing it in the Spring and Summer when there's more daylight.
I think opportunity is a big part of it, so I can imagine access to guns does make a difference. That said, I'd be interested to see the figures for other countries with high levels of gun ownership, that don't seem to have nearly as many mass shootings.
It's definitely cultural - think Switzerland and Israel. In both, you have military, full automatic weapons everywhere.
But there isn't the same gun worship culture.
In Isreal, you can be on the bus with some teenagers doing military service, complete with their rifles. Yet there is nothing like the atmosphere of the US with people openly carrying a pistol in public. No feeling of menace.
Process asylum claims, deport those that fail and maybe do something about the black economy.
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
The issue appears to be that it’s increasingly difficult to actually deport anyone, about six people per day on average.
Part of the Rwanda concept is, IIRC, that when faced with Rwanda, a number of those who have "lost" their documents will find them again.
In many cases this won't work, since they have been destroyed.
Presumably someone from, say, Albania, who ends up in Rwanda, might find that the Albanian embassy can get him a new passport to let him go back to that country?
Given it is Albanian, I would expect that
1) The passport guy at the Albanian embassy in Rwanda will shortly be wearing a watch like the guys at border control in Saudi. Worth more than a car. 2) A lot of people will be getting Albanian passports who don't deserve one 3) A number of Albanians will be stuck in Rwanda for the crime of not having enough money to pay the guy off to get a passport.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Isn’t it farmers and doctors that stand out in the suicide statistics? Both stressful jobs, but crucially jobs with easy access to a reliable method.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
This happened to a very close friend's dad (I also know the dad very well, have done since I was in primary school, always in and out of each other's houses). He was as driver for over thiry years. He was off four a couple of months after the suicide, returned for four days and then quit for good. It simply made it impossible for him to continue. He worked, until retirement, as a school-run minibus driver.
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
Teacher: OK students just wanted you to know that I support you whatever decisions you make about your gender. Student: Thanks - I want to be identified as non-binary Teacher: Well I'm not endorsing that Student (and sane, non-Daily Mail readers): WTF?!
If you read the article, it bears out some thing that teachers have told me - that some teenagers have created a weird interpretation of trans that changes every 4 minutes.
A good friend had something like this with his daughter. She was going through a very rough patch at the start of being a teenager. One day she declared she was trans. He took the approach of finding the best trick cyclist he could - an expert in the area - who works with her to try and sort out various issues that he (the specialist) could see she had - body acceptance, social etc. The specialist was pro-trans, incidentally and had referred patients to Tavistock etc.
My friend took the approach of saying she could dress how she liked (as long as vaguely you-won't-get-arrested) and you can use any pronouns you like. He also had long chats on the basis of "just tell me - anything".
After about a year, the weekly oscillations subsided. She announced she wasn't trans, after all.
Absolutely sounds very sensible. And I'm sure not at all untypical.
It was the headline that I thought amusing: teacher who says I welcome LGBT students then fails to endorse (presumably) LGBT students.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Pretty much what many in Labour think and want anyway.
A few activists maybe. It's not a view I hear expressed in my Labour supporting London metropolitan elite bubble.
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
Yep. People do seem to like the analysis which is why they presumably do it and yes it could be done with cheaper people. All valid analysis, but that wasn't the point I was making (as I guess you know from your comment about them being valid points)
My point was why would you post that link. It was appalling. The scam adverts either side tells you everything you need to know about what you are watching.
A valid argument is devalued when you post a link to something nasty supporting your view. I would never link to the Socialist Worker or BNP or something promoting scams supporting something I believed in.
Utter bullshit. If Kelvin had said it on the BBC it would be ok would it..???. but would the BBC invite him to say it..one wonders.
Yep if he had said it on BBC or ITV I would have been happy with it. I have no interest in censorship.
It was the link you posted not what KM said. It is all in the context. Not least it was a link to something promoting financial scams.
The link was to the story. I had no idea there was any link to a scam. If the mods don't like it they can remove it.
I lost a little on the SNP leadership in the end. Took the view that Yousaf was too short and Forbes too long and - given the result - I think that was probably* right, so a value loser. Looks like I would have had a chance to trade out profitably, which I probably would have done if I hadn't been too busy yesterday. Unusually for me, I had intended to see this through, after some earlier trades, so hadn't left an out bet open.
*can never be sure, of course - it might be that the result was at the far extremes of likelihood with low Yousaf and high Forbes, in which case there was no value.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Isn’t it farmers and doctors that stand out in the suicide statistics? Both stressful jobs, but crucially jobs with easy access to a reliable method.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
This happened to a very close friend's dad (I also know the dad very well, have done since I was in primary school, always in and out of each other's houses). He was as driver for over thiry years. He was off four a couple of months after the suicide, returned for four days and then quit for good. It simply made it impossible for him to continue. He worked, until retirement, as a school-run minibus driver.
A very sad story, and one of around 250 such stories every year in the UK. That’s one railway suicide every working day.
On the good news front, Kevin Mckenzie thinks Lineker and Davie are both finished. Lineker won't have his contract renewed and Davie will go as Lineker says Davie told him he had carte balance over refugees and Climate change. If they both go the left and right will be equally happy
Just to start with it is top and tailed with financial scams.
The interviewer was utterly nasty.
Why do you take pleasure in people losing there jobs?
What was being said might be true, but not sure Lineker will be worried as his contract runs to 2025 so he can carry on giving his views and clearly money isn't an issue.
Finally why on earth are you watching this bile?
All valid questions.
However:
Lineker is being paid with my license fee to do what is essentially a non-job. You do not need somebody to present football highlights (or cricket, Mark Nicholas). A lot of time is wasted in pointless and uninteresting talking that could be used to show some actual action.
So - if they get rid of him, why not? He's done very nicely out of it over the years and if it can be managed better and more cheaply without him, the Beeb should go for it,
They won't of course, they'll appoint somebody else to do the pointless drivel. But they should.
Yep. People do seem to like the analysis which is why they presumably do it and yes it could be done with cheaper people. All valid analysis, but that wasn't the point I was making (as I guess you know from your comment about them being valid points)
My point was why would you post that link. It was appalling. The scam adverts either side tells you everything you need to know about what you are watching.
A valid argument is devalued when you post a link to something nasty supporting your view. I would never link to the Socialist Worker or BNP or something promoting scams supporting something I believed in.
Utter bullshit. If Kelvin had said it on the BBC it would be ok would it..???. but would the BBC invite him to say it..one wonders.
Yep if he had said it on BBC or ITV I would have been happy with it. I have no interest in censorship.
It was the link you posted not what KM said. It is all in the context. Not least it was a link to something promoting financial scams.
The link was to the story. I had no idea there was any link to a scam. If the mods don't like it they can remove it.
There might have been Youtube ads played around the video, but the link was just to the story on GB News, on the station’s own channel.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about. [Edit: but that seems to be beyond the skills of HMG (London) these days. Perhaps through deliberate intent? They can't be that incompetent.)
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Isn’t it farmers and doctors that stand out in the suicide statistics? Both stressful jobs, but crucially jobs with easy access to a reliable method.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
This happened to a very close friend's dad (I also know the dad very well, have done since I was in primary school, always in and out of each other's houses). He was as driver for over thiry years. He was off four a couple of months after the suicide, returned for four days and then quit for good. It simply made it impossible for him to continue. He worked, until retirement, as a school-run minibus driver.
A very sad story, and one of around 250 such stories every year in the UK. That’s one railway suicide every working day.
Yep. He's a very eloquent guy* and was very open about what happened and how it made him feel. Interestingly he didn't attach any blame to the person who jumped out in front of him. He managed to get in touch with the family which helped him a bit (and, perhaps, also them). He'd say he's over it, I think, but part of that process meant he could never drive a train again.
*also one of my favouriter pro-Brexit voters - much like Richard Tyndall on sovereignty grounds and had some interesting discussions about that. Absolutely non-racist, I've heard him call out people complaining about immigration and immigrants multiple times.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Railways are an interesting one. The rate varies through the year with more people doing it in the Spring and Summer when there's more daylight.
I think opportunity is a big part of it, so I can imagine access to guns does make a difference. That said, I'd be interested to see the figures for other countries with high levels of gun ownership, that don't seem to have nearly as many mass shootings.
It's definitely cultural - think Switzerland and Israel. In both, you have military, full automatic weapons everywhere.
But there isn't the same gun worship culture.
In Isreal, you can be on the bus with some teenagers doing military service, complete with their rifles. Yet there is nothing like the atmosphere of the US with people openly carrying a pistol in public. No feeling of menace.
In Switzerland and Israel people are carrying rifles for the defence of the state. In America they are carrying rifles to defend themselves *against* the state...
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
Infant mortality is notably higher in the US than it is in Western European countries. I don't know if that would have a significant effect on life expectancy though.
Limited access to medical care for poorer Americans is surely a factor.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Cannot underestimate the significance of three Asian-origin political figures as PM of the UK, Mayor of London, and FM of Scotland.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
We are desperately short of workers in certain sectors and certain areas. We could route people fleeing asylum to these areas and given them a very limited visa - you can live and work in the UK if you live here. If you move elsewhere your visa is rescinded and we can deport you.
I know that the angry don't want any foreigners coming here taking our jobs and our benefits, but they don't want to take the jobs we can't fill either. So...
I lost a little on the SNP leadership in the end. Took the view that Yousaf was too short and Forbes too long and - given the result - I think that was probably* right, so a value loser. Looks like I would have had a chance to trade out profitably, which I probably would have done if I hadn't been too busy yesterday. Unusually for me, I had intended to see this through, after some earlier trades, so hadn't left an out bet open.
*can never be sure, of course - it might be that the result was at the far extremes of likelihood with low Yousaf and high Forbes, in which case there was no value.
If it is any consolation you were as correct as anyone could be, and very much of my view, and some other PBScots. And much more correct than those on PB who insisted that Mr Yousaf would be a walk-in. We didn't know the age/length of membership distribution of the electorate, and that was a big issue. And that poll of members which HYUFD touted - it could not possibly be an accurate sample withouth a major GDPR breach.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Railways are an interesting one. The rate varies through the year with more people doing it in the Spring and Summer when there's more daylight.
I think opportunity is a big part of it, so I can imagine access to guns does make a difference. That said, I'd be interested to see the figures for other countries with high levels of gun ownership, that don't seem to have nearly as many mass shootings.
It's definitely cultural - think Switzerland and Israel. In both, you have military, full automatic weapons everywhere.
But there isn't the same gun worship culture.
In Isreal, you can be on the bus with some teenagers doing military service, complete with their rifles. Yet there is nothing like the atmosphere of the US with people openly carrying a pistol in public. No feeling of menace.
In Switzerland and Israel people are carrying rifles for the defence of the state. In America they are carrying rifles to defend themselves *against* the state...
No really.
In Israel, it's more "I have to carry this power tool for this job I have to do. Annoying isn't it?"
In Switzerland, where open carry is less common - "I am taking my army rifle to the range to convert ammunition into noise and chat with some friends. Because it's a thing I do from time to time."
In America - "I am carrying my customised Sig Blah Blah on my hip. Because any second now, I will need to defend myself against Professor Snape and a multicultural group of international terrorists. Or more likely, shoot someone by accident in a road rage incident."
We are desperately short of workers in certain sectors and certain areas. We could route people fleeing asylum to these areas and given them a very limited visa - you can live and work in the UK if you live here. If you move elsewhere your visa is rescinded and we can deport you.
I know that the angry don't want any foreigners coming here taking our jobs and our benefits, but they don't want to take the jobs we can't fill either. So...
I don't think your idea would do much other than give immigration lawyers a new arena to fight in.
I would think that tying a visa to a location within the UK would be problematic - how do you define the location and their adherence to it?
We are friends with 3 people who work for Border Force at Heathrow (husband and wife and friend who are all retired Sargent with the Met). They tell us the number of people claiming asylum at Heathrow is huge. I assume because it is unseen it never gets mentioned. I am assuming their stories are accurate, but I also assume they are rather jaded by their experiences.
They are coming in on false passports, or arrangements to study that turn out to be false (apparently obviously so). As soon as they are rumbled they claim asylum.
I assume the difference between these people and the boat people is the ability or having enough funds to pay for false documents and a flight (although by the sounds of it boat people are paying a fortune for the trip over the channel as well).
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Pretty much what many in Labour think and want anyway.
Open borders now - as opposed to a dreamy 'one day' aspiration - is a niche position even in Labour. 'That v Rwanda' is a false binary created as a debating strategy by proponents of hard-ball anti-refugee policies.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
Just signed my formal letter of resignation and departed Bute House for the final time. Next stop @ScotParl to vote proudly for @HumzaYousaf as Scotland’s 6th First Minister. From me - for now - thank you Scotland, for the privilege 🏴
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
Quite, so why be so slow about processing?
The slow processing means spending less money day to day by the departments employing the assessors, lawyers etc , and is seen as a disincentive.
We are friends with 3 people who work for Border Force at Heathrow (husband and wife and friend who are all retired Sargent with the Met). They tell us the number of people claiming asylum at Heathrow is huge. I assume because it is unseen it never gets mentioned. I am assuming their stories are accurate, but I also assume they are rather jaded by their experiences.
They are coming in on false passports, or arrangements to study that turn out to be false (apparently obviously so). As soon as they are rumbled they claim asylum.
I assume the difference between these people and the boat people is the ability or having enough funds to pay for false documents and a flight (although by the sounds of it boat people are paying a fortune for the trip over the channel as well).
Isn't the difference that the airline is obliged to return them?
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
Quite, so why be so slow about processing?
The slow processing means spending less money day to day by the departments employing the assessors, lawyers etc , and is seen as a disincentive.
Re the article - the figures are pretty much as I would expect. The deeper problem is this: The Small Boats politics is very much a UK wide DUP style problem.
Two things are reasonably clear. One, there is a problem and secondly everyone can tell you what they don't want.
Mr Smithson says:
Sunak and those who advise him have got this wrong.
And I agree.
But the real question is: What policy would be right in humane, legal and electoral terms?
Fund the Home Office to deal with asylum claims quickly and remove people whose claims are not valid. Fund local authorities to monitor and close down black economy operations in their area. Open up more legal pathways for refugees to come here and fund their integration into the economy and our society. Would get my vote.
Costs too much. Sufficient legal resource not available. Large number of claims are valid but not electorally popular over a certain number, unless from HK/Ukraine. Fails to close down boats.
otherwise, fine.
The government policy isn't cheap either. We live in a dangerous and complicated world, dealing with that isn't cheap.
All true, illustrating the insoluble nature of the problem. The answer has to be humane, lawful and electorally possible. It is actually hard even to target one of the three, let alone two. or three.
The problem is easier to fix for Labour who have a coalition of voters who mostly want humane and lawful. It is very hard for the Tories given where their voters are on this issue.
Sure, Labour have an easy get-out: just open the borders.
Pretty much what many in Labour think and want anyway.
A few activists maybe. It's not a view I hear expressed in my Labour supporting London metropolitan elite bubble.
To win an election SKS needs the core 'Labour till I die' vote + several million people who generally vote Tory.
These are not uniform. The One nation Clarkeist Tories who have gone are very different from the WWC vote. SKS is doing a decent job of keeping both groups on board (I think); but the more he says anything or has actual policies the harder it will get.
Sunak has a difficult job in trying to both run a country and get both groups back.
We also have a country where people are bored with politicians and politics but there are no interesting leaders with attention getting qualities.
Just suppose the next election was Badenoch v D Miliband or Streeting v Forbes. But borefest it will be.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
Quite, so why be so slow about processing?
The slow processing means spending less money day to day by the departments employing the assessors, lawyers etc , and is seen as a disincentive.
Point taken. But all Home Office surely?
That assumes the helicopter view of the Home Office. That it is run to maximise efficiency overall. It isn't.
If you increase budget for assessors, lawyers etc, you will increase, massively, in the short term, immigration.
If you decrease budget for assessors, lawyers etc, you will decrease legal immigration. Kinda.
The dentation facilities come out of a different budget.
This kind of disfunction is common in large organisations.
Not to spoil it or anything, but if you want to skip the speeches then Humza Yousaf will get 71 votes, Douglas Ross will get 31, Anas Sarwar will get 22 and Alex Cole-Hamilton will get four. If everyone turns up and presses the right buttons that is, which isn’t always a given…
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Suddenly many of the governments policies are perhaps beginning to finally make sense. Are they intent on making the UK a worse place to live to put off the economic migrants from coming here?
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
Teacher: OK students just wanted you to know that I support you whatever decisions you make about your gender. Student: Thanks - I want to be identified as non-binary Teacher: Well I'm not endorsing that Student (and sane, non-Daily Mail readers): WTF?!
If you read the article, it bears out some thing that teachers have told me - that some teenagers have created a weird interpretation of trans that changes every 4 minutes.
A good friend had something like this with his daughter. She was going through a very rough patch at the start of being a teenager. One day she declared she was trans. He took the approach of finding the best trick cyclist he could - an expert in the area - who works with her to try and sort out various issues that he (the specialist) could see she had - body acceptance, social etc. The specialist was pro-trans, incidentally and had referred patients to Tavistock etc.
My friend took the approach of saying she could dress how she liked (as long as vaguely you-won't-get-arrested) and you can use any pronouns you like. He also had long chats on the basis of "just tell me - anything".
After about a year, the weekly oscillations subsided. She announced she wasn't trans, after all.
Absolutely sounds very sensible. And I'm sure not at all untypical.
It was the headline that I thought amusing: teacher who says I welcome LGBT students then fails to endorse (presumably) LGBT students.
They got one thing right: "I was completely out of my depth. "
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about.
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
It would probably be cheaper to put them on cruise ships... and give them non stop round the world cruises.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
Not for the time equivalent: and actually running an efficient processing and legal system would resolve that issue, even if it is true.
Detention of any kind is very, very expensive.
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Not to spoil it or anything, but if you want to skip the speeches then Humza Yousaf will get 71 votes, Douglas Ross will get 31, Anas Sarwar will get 22 and Alex Cole-Hamilton will get four. If everyone turns up and presses the right buttons that is, which isn’t always a given…
The sad thing for Yousless is that today is the best day in his job as First Minister. It will only slide downhill from here, and he will snarl and hiss at all the people he will be attacking for being responsible for the slide.
Lets assume that Ms Forbes isn't given a job she will accept (or at all) and leads the awkward squad inside the party. OK so most MSPs back Yousless. But she has a significant minority of members behind her, which could make things interesting.
The current iteration of the SNP as being Right-On is only a recent creation. It is a centre party bringing people together from across the political spectrum to fight for independence. If Yousless is going to keep trying to marginalise all the people who aren't right-on, we could see it drift apart.
Cannot underestimate the significance of three Asian-origin political figures as PM of the UK, Mayor of London, and FM of Scotland.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
This is true, it is quite remarkable and reflects well on us as a country and more specifically on our political parties. Only Khan has won a popular election though.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
Where would they live if they moved to Cornwall?
According to people I spoke to in Cornwall, the problem is that you can't afford to have a low end job in Cornwall - the cost of housing is too high.
There are 20,000 holiday home and second home in the entire of Cornwall. Out of 240K homes in Cornwall as a whole. But building 20K more properties is apparently impossible,
With an increasing population and a demand that there is no development in Cornwall, the obvious solution is forced emigration.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Drugs, guns, and a somewhat outdated attitude towards drinking and driving.
On guns, it is interesting to note how many of the deaths are suicides. In 2020, suicides accounted for 54% of the 45,222 gun deaths.
That was a point made to me by an American friend also. Interestingly a very liberal individual who however is really into his hunting and fishing and a gun advocate so it isn't all one sided.
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
There must doubtless be people who in a moment of emotional crisis, reach for their gun; who in the absence of such an immediate way out might have got beyond the moment, reconsidered and lived through it.
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
Isn’t it farmers and doctors that stand out in the suicide statistics? Both stressful jobs, but crucially jobs with easy access to a reliable method.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
I agree. Suicide is legal in the UK but the Government makes it nigh but impossible to access the drugs to do it painlessly and with dignity. I doubt anyone would choose to throw themselves under a train if other methods were readily available.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
And we need immigrants to help build the houses too.....
Cannot underestimate the significance of three Asian-origin political figures as PM of the UK, Mayor of London, and FM of Scotland.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
This is true, it is quite remarkable and reflects well on us as a country and more specifically on our political parties. Only Khan has won a popular election though.
Indeed an achievement but only Khan has won an election amongst the voters he governs ie Londoners. Sunak has yet to win a UK general election and Yousaf has yet to win a Scottish election
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
It is particularly disheartening that the two flag wavers for this policy are respectively the son and daughter of economic migrants. That they should arrive here and then pull up the drawbridge on others following them is quite disgusting. Particularly when Sunak made so much of the advantages he and his family gained and by implication how much this country gained by having them.
My family came from Riga in the late nineteenth century so that is several generations further on but I would still feel a hypocrite supporting a party that wanted to introduce this
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
There aren't enough houses for the people living in Cornwall.
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
One of the things about hospitality jobs, in particular, is that they were a very good way for single, young people from other EU countries to get to the UK to perfect their English and then go home again to do higher paid jobs. They didn’t mind doing a couple of years in cramped accommodation above the pub or restaurant, even sharing bedrooms, because they knew it was not forever. For entirely rational reasons, young Brits just do not have the same motivations.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
There aren't enough houses for the people living in Cornwall.
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
Excluding those with second homes who live in London and the Home counties most of the year it might have enough
Doesn't matter on what happens with the boats, this is what the voters will remember.
Food prices inflation up to new high
Food prices inflation has risen by 15 per cent in a year, causing prices in Britain’s shops to climb faster than ever before.
Average shop prices are now 8.9 per cent higher than they were at this time a year ago, the highest rate of annual inflation that the British Retail Consortium, which collects the data, has recorded. It marks an acceleration from the 8.4 per cent noted in February.
One thing I have noticed in the consumer confidence data is that there has been a decent recovery in confidence among those on >£50k but none among everyone else. I think stuff like this has a lot to do with that. Until we see confidence improving among middle income earners I would be wary of expecting a major Tory recovery, however nasty they are to kids fleeing war zones.
The mix of inflation is striking as well. Life's essentials (housing / energy / food) are going up a lot, but discretionary spending is mostly getting cheaper in real terms;
Presumably that's why the comfortably off are quite chipper.
What seems to be going up most in supermarkets are branded items.
In Asda at the moment a 910g bottle of Heinz tomato sauce is £4, whereas a 970g of Asda tomato sauce is £1.10. Therefore for what is basically the same product, Heinz s more than 4 times the cost. How do Asda manage to make tomato sauce so much cheaper than Heinz, or is there just some extreme profiteering going on with Heinz?
A lot of the own brand stuff is made in the same factories, by the same staff, as the branded stuff, albeit to a different recipe.
You'd assume that Asda are using cheaper ingredients, but they're probably also profiteering on the brand loyalty of customers able and willing to pay more for branded products.
I don't eat ketchup because it's fucking disgusting but I know my kids would go ballistic if we bought anything other than Heinz. We had a mini rebellion on our hands just substituting the low sugar and salt version. I'm mostly an own brand kind of guy but there are certain things (weetabix, ketchup and mayonnaise, marmite, nutella) where only the branded version will do.
I have a pal whose lad goes similarly ballistic when she buys supermarket brands, he calls them ‘council sauce’, ‘council ginger’ etc. She performed an experiment where she replaced the contents of an opened tube of Pringles with I think Asda’s own version, and nary a peep was heard.
Cannot underestimate the significance of three Asian-origin political figures as PM of the UK, Mayor of London, and FM of Scotland.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
This is true, it is quite remarkable and reflects well on us as a country and more specifically on our political parties. Only Khan has won a popular election though.
For me the real joy is with the footie. On the pitch at least there is complete and utter colour-blindness. Now of course it would be difficult to show otherwise, and who knows what might go on in some of their minds but when a goal is scored the colour-blind unbridled joy amongst the players is indeed joyous.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
There aren't enough houses for the people living in Cornwall.
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
Excluding those with second homes who live in London and the Home counties most of the year it might have enough
There are 20K second homes and holiday lets in Cornwall, out of a housing stock of 240K
That's 8.3% - if you close down the entire tourist industry completely.
According to the graph, the population of Cornwall is expanding by 4K or so, people . Each year.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
There aren't enough houses for the people living in Cornwall.
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
So I come back to the basic question - where do you build these houses? Because when you ask, people say no. If you impose, you change the nature of the place. Some villages can't have new houses built because the geography doesn't allow it. So it has to be in others, and that of course is where the objections come in.
The other factor is what kind of homes are being built? Some flats could be built which are sympathetic to the surrounding and give younger singles somewhere to live. But very little chance of getting local crusties who run councils and have more votes to agree to that.
Here's a beautiful cinema commercial from the last time the refugees were being pilloried. It was shot by an English director but it was run throughout Europe.
Doesn't matter on what happens with the boats, this is what the voters will remember.
Food prices inflation up to new high
Food prices inflation has risen by 15 per cent in a year, causing prices in Britain’s shops to climb faster than ever before.
Average shop prices are now 8.9 per cent higher than they were at this time a year ago, the highest rate of annual inflation that the British Retail Consortium, which collects the data, has recorded. It marks an acceleration from the 8.4 per cent noted in February.
One thing I have noticed in the consumer confidence data is that there has been a decent recovery in confidence among those on >£50k but none among everyone else. I think stuff like this has a lot to do with that. Until we see confidence improving among middle income earners I would be wary of expecting a major Tory recovery, however nasty they are to kids fleeing war zones.
The mix of inflation is striking as well. Life's essentials (housing / energy / food) are going up a lot, but discretionary spending is mostly getting cheaper in real terms;
Presumably that's why the comfortably off are quite chipper.
What seems to be going up most in supermarkets are branded items.
In Asda at the moment a 910g bottle of Heinz tomato sauce is £4, whereas a 970g of Asda tomato sauce is £1.10. Therefore for what is basically the same product, Heinz s more than 4 times the cost. How do Asda manage to make tomato sauce so much cheaper than Heinz, or is there just some extreme profiteering going on with Heinz?
A lot of the own brand stuff is made in the same factories, by the same staff, as the branded stuff, albeit to a different recipe.
You'd assume that Asda are using cheaper ingredients, but they're probably also profiteering on the brand loyalty of customers able and willing to pay more for branded products.
I don't eat ketchup because it's fucking disgusting but I know my kids would go ballistic if we bought anything other than Heinz. We had a mini rebellion on our hands just substituting the low sugar and salt version. I'm mostly an own brand kind of guy but there are certain things (weetabix, ketchup and mayonnaise, marmite, nutella) where only the branded version will do.
I have a pal whose lad goes similarly ballistic when she buys supermarket brands, he calls them ‘council sauce’, ‘council ginger’ etc. She performed an experiment where she replaced the contents of an opened tube of Pringles with I think Asda’s own version, and nary a peep was heard.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
One of the many ironies of Brexit is that we are still going to recruit immigrants for those roles but it is the businesses that can cope best with additional red tape that are benefitting.
The Australian style points system is all bluster - if you are in a shortage occupation that is low paid you can get a visa on £10.10 per hour.
National minimum wage is £9.50 and going up to £10.42.....
And before someone says it is only for skilled workers in shortage occupations, its a massive list that includes most jobs. Need 4 immigrants to work as staff in your pub - make one the bar manager, another a catering manager, one a floor manager and the last the kitchen manager and its all fine.
Cannot underestimate the significance of three Asian-origin political figures as PM of the UK, Mayor of London, and FM of Scotland.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
This is true, it is quite remarkable and reflects well on us as a country and more specifically on our political parties. Only Khan has won a popular election though.
Indeed an achievement but only Khan has won an election amongst the voters he governs ie Londoners. Sunak has yet to win a UK general election and Yousaf has yet to win a Scottish election
And there must be a serious doubt that Yousaf will win..The days of the One Party State in Scotland are over.
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Your sneer about the Clyde doesn't suggest you are being serious. They need to be in the Thames where most of the immigration is heading, and where historically most of the hulks were for the same basic purpose.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about. [Edit: but that seems to be beyond the skills of HMG (London) these days. Perhaps through deliberate intent? They can't be that incompetent.)
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
If HMG farmed out the running of the hulks to English water companies, discharging raw sewage problem instantly solved and another income stream to discharge into the directors’ bonus funds. Trebles all round!
The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.
Nah. Put them in prison hulks.
On the Clyde.
They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
Tory MPs? Not like you.
It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.
Gotit.
They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
There aren't enough houses for the people living in Cornwall.
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
So I come back to the basic question - where do you build these houses? Because when you ask, people say no. If you impose, you change the nature of the place. Some villages can't have new houses built because the geography doesn't allow it. So it has to be in others, and that of course is where the objections come in.
The other factor is what kind of homes are being built? Some flats could be built which are sympathetic to the surrounding and give younger singles somewhere to live. But very little chance of getting local crusties who run councils and have more votes to agree to that.
The locals want more houses to be built. It's generally the incomers who are blocking them.
The geography argument is largely nonsense - there are very few villages that don't have room to expand by 1% a year. This is what used to happen, back when planning was just a dream.
Pretty simple to demand that properties be built in the local vernacular - local planning can do that.
The population is expanding at 1% per year. 1% of the housing stock is 2,400 homes. Double that to deal with the back log. 5,000 a year.
Comments
I have some sympathy for the labour shortage point - I don't think the electorate as a whole does, though.
EDIT: One told me it was racist policy. Because it would prevent undocumented people getting jobs.
And I do know that in Canada individuals sponsor people they have never met and have no connection with.
I think it is a worthwhile thing.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/families-refugees-could-moved-aboard-28925235
It's a 50% solution at best, but still better than the Conservatives 0% solution. Which only makes sense if the Conservatives know they are going to lose the next election and are happy to dump the accumulating problem on the next Labour government.
I am not sure I understand the reference to fails "electorally with regard to Ukraine! " Please provide evidence.
If the population increases by 100K, we need (roughly) 100K bedrooms. We need schools, hospitals etc.
I am in favour of mass immigration and mass infrastructure. It is institutional racism not to provide the infrastructure to go with the population increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/deportations-from-uk-at-record-low-as-asylum-applications-soar
'As a gay teacher, I tried to help LGBT students feel included - only for them to turn on me when I failed to endorse their gender ideology': Educator's warning from a rural comprehensive where 'kids seem to shop for sexualities and change pronouns weekly'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11908547/I-tried-help-students-turn-failed-endorse-ideology.html
We tend to avoid the discussion, but one wonders whether the suicide rate would be lower if guns weren't present. I know there are plenty of other ways to top yourself, but most take a little more planning. I don't have any figures so it may just be stories but I believe farmers and shotguns are not a good mix.
In many cases this won't work, since they have been destroyed.
Student: Thanks - I want to be identified as non-binary
Teacher: Well I'm not endorsing that
Student (and sane, non-Daily Mail readers): WTF?!
Refugees allowed to settle and work might be net contributors to the economy overall.
Detaining those who aren't is extremely expensive.
That alone isn't an argument for any given policy, but it ought to be included in their assessment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events
But then, they have trains to throw themselves under and more higher buildings to throw themselves off, so the means are there. Maybe guns just mean they don't have to inconvenience so many people.
A good friend had something like this with his daughter. She was going through a very rough patch at the start of being a teenager. One day she declared she was trans. He took the approach of finding the best trick cyclist he could - an expert in the area - who works with her to try and sort out various issues that he (the specialist) could see she had - body acceptance, social etc. The specialist was pro-trans, incidentally and had referred patients to Tavistock etc.
My friend took the approach of saying she could dress how she liked (as long as vaguely you-won't-get-arrested) and you can use any pronouns you like. He also had long chats on the basis of "just tell me - anything".
After about a year, the weekly oscillations subsided. She announced she wasn't trans, after all.
Suicide by train, more common in Europe than the US, is utterly horrific for the poor train driver. Many of them are off work for months, and some never go back to driving trains afterwards.
I think opportunity is a big part of it, so I can imagine access to guns does make a difference. That said, I'd be interested to see the figures for other countries with high levels of gun ownership, that don't seem to have nearly as many mass shootings.
But there isn't the same gun worship culture.
In Isreal, you can be on the bus with some teenagers doing military service, complete with their rifles. Yet there is nothing like the atmosphere of the US with people openly carrying a pistol in public. No feeling of menace.
1) The passport guy at the Albanian embassy in Rwanda will shortly be wearing a watch like the guys at border control in Saudi. Worth more than a car.
2) A lot of people will be getting Albanian passports who don't deserve one
3) A number of Albanians will be stuck in Rwanda for the crime of not having enough money to pay the guy off to get a passport.
https://www.notesonnationalism.com/p/bonus-edition-yousafs-first-day?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It was the headline that I thought amusing: teacher who says I welcome LGBT students then fails to endorse (presumably) LGBT students.
I lost a little on the SNP leadership in the end. Took the view that Yousaf was too short and Forbes too long and - given the result - I think that was probably* right, so a value loser. Looks like I would have had a chance to trade out profitably, which I probably would have done if I hadn't been too busy yesterday. Unusually for me, I had intended to see this through, after some earlier trades, so hadn't left an out bet open.
*can never be sure, of course - it might be that the result was at the far extremes of likelihood with low Yousaf and high Forbes, in which case there was no value.
But in seriousness: there are major issues with using such old ships, not least sanitation. Dicscharging raw sewage will get you nowhere with planning authorities and environmental laws. Also, such ships are not designed for surveillance and security. And they are very poor value for money in terms of prisoner per pound. Better to have a properly designed and run internment camp on land. With all the nasty things you go on about. [Edit: but that seems to be beyond the skills of HMG (London) these days. Perhaps through deliberate intent? They can't be that incompetent.)
It's revealing that no government has ever adopted the prison ship solution for long, other than the special case of the C18-C19 where the prisoners naturally turned up at naval bases or were needed to work on things like piers and docks. Maidstone in NI was an emergency, soon replaced by land camps.
"no contact with family" - try getting that past any sane court.
*also one of my favouriter pro-Brexit voters - much like Richard Tyndall on sovereignty grounds and had some interesting discussions about that. Absolutely non-racist, I've heard him call out people complaining about immigration and immigrants multiple times.
Complete with the eat-much-as-you-like buffet.
There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
Limited access to medical care for poorer Americans is surely a factor.
Risen up within three separate political parties.
This can only happen in a tolerant, pro-equality, anti-discrimination democracy like ours…..
Compared to the state of affairs in other Western European countries, it is a luxury - as a non-white, non-Christian academic & writer - to even be in the position to criticise a Hindu PM of Indian origin and the Mayor of London & FM of Scotland (both of Pakistani heritage).
https://twitter.com/rakibehsan/status/1640630105612382208?s=20
I know that the angry don't want any foreigners coming here taking our jobs and our benefits, but they don't want to take the jobs we can't fill either. So...
In Israel, it's more "I have to carry this power tool for this job I have to do. Annoying isn't it?"
In Switzerland, where open carry is less common - "I am taking my army rifle to the range to convert ammunition into noise and chat with some friends. Because it's a thing I do from time to time."
In America - "I am carrying my customised Sig Blah Blah on my hip. Because any second now, I will need to defend myself against Professor Snape and a multicultural group of international terrorists. Or more likely, shoot someone by accident in a road rage incident."
I would think that tying a visa to a location within the UK would be problematic - how do you define the location and their adherence to it?
They are coming in on false passports, or arrangements to study that turn out to be false (apparently obviously so). As soon as they are rumbled they claim asylum.
I assume the difference between these people and the boat people is the ability or having enough funds to pay for false documents and a flight (although by the sounds of it boat people are paying a fortune for the trip over the channel as well).
Hence the old crack about Eton being cheaper than Borstal.
Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.
The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.
So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
Next stop @ScotParl to vote proudly for @HumzaYousaf as Scotland’s 6th First Minister.
From me - for now - thank you Scotland, for the privilege 🏴
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1640648358351056896?s=20
Gotit.
These are not uniform. The One nation Clarkeist Tories who have gone are very different from the WWC vote. SKS is doing a decent job of keeping both groups on board (I think); but the more he says anything or has actual policies the harder it will get.
Sunak has a difficult job in trying to both run a country and get both groups back.
We also have a country where people are bored with politicians and politics but there are no interesting leaders with attention getting qualities.
Just suppose the next election was Badenoch v D Miliband or Streeting v Forbes. But borefest it will be.
I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
If you increase budget for assessors, lawyers etc, you will increase, massively, in the short term, immigration.
If you decrease budget for assessors, lawyers etc, you will decrease legal immigration. Kinda.
The dentation facilities come out of a different budget.
This kind of disfunction is common in large organisations.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1640649142962737154?s=20
People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
Lets assume that Ms Forbes isn't given a job she will accept (or at all) and leads the awkward squad inside the party. OK so most MSPs back Yousless. But she has a significant minority of members behind her, which could make things interesting.
The current iteration of the SNP as being Right-On is only a recent creation. It is a centre party bringing people together from across the political spectrum to fight for independence. If Yousless is going to keep trying to marginalise all the people who aren't right-on, we could see it drift apart.
Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
There are 20,000 holiday home and second home in the entire of Cornwall. Out of 240K homes in Cornwall as a whole. But building 20K more properties is apparently impossible,
With an increasing population and a demand that there is no development in Cornwall, the obvious solution is forced emigration.
Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
My family came from Riga in the late nineteenth century so that is several generations further on but I would still feel a hypocrite supporting a party that wanted to introduce this
If you advocate an increasing population (which you do), you need somewhere for people to live.
Not really an option with ketchup I accept.
That's 8.3% - if you close down the entire tourist industry completely.
According to the graph, the population of Cornwall is expanding by 4K or so, people . Each year.
The other factor is what kind of homes are being built? Some flats could be built which are sympathetic to the surrounding and give younger singles somewhere to live. But very little chance of getting local crusties who run councils and have more votes to agree to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5n0DLYbYqc
The Australian style points system is all bluster - if you are in a shortage occupation that is low paid you can get a visa on £10.10 per hour.
https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa/when-you-can-be-paid-less
National minimum wage is £9.50 and going up to £10.42.....
And before someone says it is only for skilled workers in shortage occupations, its a massive list that includes most jobs. Need 4 immigrants to work as staff in your pub - make one the bar manager, another a catering manager, one a floor manager and the last the kitchen manager and its all fine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations-and-codes
The geography argument is largely nonsense - there are very few villages that don't have room to expand by 1% a year. This is what used to happen, back when planning was just a dream.
Pretty simple to demand that properties be built in the local vernacular - local planning can do that.
The population is expanding at 1% per year. 1% of the housing stock is 2,400 homes. Double that to deal with the back log. 5,000 a year.