The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
Yes.
And there is nothing that he could do to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.
Getting rid of a Supreme Court Justice is close to impossible. Which is one of many reasons why it was such a terrible idea to turn the court into a legislative body.
SCOTUS, due to Marbury effectively decides how the US constitution should be read. They watch the watchers, and when you get a court as ideological as this one.. Marshall's famous quote beloved of the federalist school of thought in US law was the original troll.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
We'll see. The majority on the court might decide it's not tenable to have a criminal on the bench.
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
Is anyone predicting imminent price cuts?
Look at the price of milk (literally). There’s the stirrings of supermarket movement. I presume some food prices (like milk) are linked to commodities like fuel that have actually dropped and so there’s space for real cuts. But the last bit is a guess - the price moves are observed fact.
Milk won't be reducing in price - until very recently the farmgate price of milk wasn't much below production cost.
Even now it's only 50p per litre see https://ahdb.org.uk/dairy/uk-farmgate-milk-prices for prices - which means that there at £1.75 for 2 litres (which is what I paid yesterday) there is only 75p to cover all the transportation and packaging costs.
I was stating a fact, not speculating. Milk prices are dropping.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
We'll see. The majority on the court might decide it's not tenable to have a criminal on the bench.
Well, Brett Kavanaugh got on and the evidence against him was pretty strong...
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
No-one gives a fuck about the relative numbers compared to France, Germany or Greece mate.
They care about the fact we've totally lost control of the Channel and can't determine who lands here.
Question. How doe the latest totemic "solution" - quitting the EHRC - solve that? Is the reason we can't drag the boats to France the EHRC? Is the reason we have an endless backlog because we spend £0.02 on the Home Office the EHRC? How about our lack of places to put failed asylum seekers before they are deported back from whence they came or Rwanda?
This government is shit. And they are pandering to people who don't know how it works to blame everyone else but themselves. But it doesn't work any more. They care that we have zero control. And the government promised them control and can't deliver.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
Yes.
And there is nothing that he could do to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.
Getting rid of a Supreme Court Justice is close to impossible. Which is one of many reasons why it was such a terrible idea to turn the court into a legislative body.
SCOTUS, due to Marbury effectively decides how the US constitution should be read. They watch the watchers, and when you get a court as ideological as this one..
Courts have been ideological before. It's when you have justices displaying open contempt for the law itself that things start to break down.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
We'll see. The majority on the court might decide it's not tenable to have a criminal on the bench.
Three of them might - highly doubtful about the others, will Thomas even recuse himself ?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
No-one gives a fuck about the relative numbers compared to France, Germany or Greece mate.
They care about the fact we've totally lost control of the Channel and can't determine who lands here.
Question. How doe the latest totemic "solution" - quitting the EHRC - solve that? Is the reason we can't drag the boats to France the EHRC? Is the reason we have an endless backlog because we spend £0.02 on the Home Office the EHRC? How about our lack of places to put failed asylum seekers before they are deported back from whence they came or Rwanda?
This government is shit. And they are pandering to people who don't know how it works to blame everyone else but themselves. But it doesn't work any more. They care that we have zero control. And the government promised them control and can't deliver.
"In 2021, there were 14,572 initial decisions made on asylum applications [...]
"Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years. For much of the past decade, around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2021 is the highest grant rate in over thirty years (since 82% in 1990).
"The low number of refusals in 2021 is predominantly related to a 98% decrease in third country refusals (from 2,952 in 2020 to 50 in 2021). A third country refusal refers to the UK determining that it is not the country responsible for considering a person’s asylum claim, to return them to the safe third country in which the person was previously present or with which they have some other connection. The use of this decision outcome has been affected by the UK leaving the EU. Prior to leaving the EU, the UK processed most third country cases in accordance with the Dublin regulation (which applies to all EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein); however, this ceased to apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. New inadmissibility rules, which in part aim to replace the previous operation of the Dublin regulation, were introduced on 1 January 2021 (see the Inadmissibility section of this release below).
[...]
"64 individuals were served with inadmissibility decisions, meaning the UK would not admit the asylum claim for consideration in the UK system, because another country was considered to be responsible for the claim, owing to the claimant’s previous presence in, or connection to a safe country
"There were 11 enforced returns of individuals considered for removal on inadmissibility grounds"
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
Yes, and - as I say - I understand this emotional argument. It is probably the single BEST argument for indy, given that the economic arguments are so shaky. Scotland could then control and boost its population, if that is desired. Tho recent events in Ireland suggest that "Celtic" nations with relatively large amounts of space per head do not, in fact, take kindly to large scale immigration, when it finally happens
I don't think it's that simple. Scotland has been part of the UK while the UK has experienced a lot of immigration, but not many of the immigrants have gone to Scotland. An independent Scotland might struggle, at least at first, to create the economic opportunities to attract immigration.
It took a long time for the Republic of Ireland to reverse its population decline after independence and net migration longer to contribute to population growth.
Scotland isn't post-famine Ireland, but the SNP haven't shown much awareness of what choices a government of an independent nation of five million has to make to pay its way in the world. You might argue that their economic plan for independence has a few Trussian undertones.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It isn't racist to talk about migration. I have to wonder though why your response to the fact that we take so few asylum seekers was to say that we take so many legal migrants. And this is post Brexit so it isn't EU citizens wandering in, this is people our government is granting residency to.
If I was a Brexit voter whose primary focus was to stop foreigners coming here and taking the jobs, would I not be a bit annoyed with the stats you quoted? People voted to Take Back Control of the border. Which meant padlock it shut. So why is it more widely open than ever???
Sample: "Montana Republicans are aligned behind zoning reform and other pro-housing policies. Montana's facing a housing shortage and affordability crisis and is passing a slew of bills to fight it. Pro-housing activists have messaged the policies as fighting California-style urban sprawl. The deep red state of Montana is full of Republican YIMBYs, and they're using the time-honored bipartisan tradition of mocking California to alleviate their state's housing affordability crisis."
As far as I can tell from the article, they are doing rational things, such as making it easy to build "accessory dwelling units", ADUs for short -- which can be bought for as little as 50K.
There is, by now, a decades-old tradition of appealing to voters in other states by bashing California. Maybe Montanans will bring back that old slogan: "Don't Calfornicate Montana". (Which I perhaps shouldn't like, but do.)
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
Is anyone predicting imminent price cuts?
Look at the price of milk (literally). There’s the stirrings of supermarket movement. I presume some food prices (like milk) are linked to commodities like fuel that have actually dropped and so there’s space for real cuts. But the last bit is a guess - the price moves are observed fact.
Milk won't be reducing in price - until very recently the farmgate price of milk wasn't much below production cost.
Even now it's only 50p per litre see https://ahdb.org.uk/dairy/uk-farmgate-milk-prices for prices - which means that there at £1.75 for 2 litres (which is what I paid yesterday) there is only 75p to cover all the transportation and packaging costs.
Milk used to be a loss-leader. So the price could go back down if the supermarkets gave it away. As they did for a long time when the price point seemed anchored to 99p for a 4 pint carton.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
So Scotland needs a century of freedom to do so too I guess.
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
Ironic that at least part of the decline is due to the separatists in government...
Yes, if Sindy ever happened - or looked like happening - one of the first big consequences would be large finance/legal firms (and so on) removing themselves from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. So the first effect would be net emigration. And this would continue if the iScottish economy really wobbled
I think there could be serious capital flight and relocation of Scottish-based business which consider the UK as their home market. A "hard" Scexit involving currency and tariff barriers with rUK could be catastrophic. The Sturgeon/Yousaf approach, to decry "Tory austerity" and, presumably, whack up income tax on high earners would turn it from being merely catastrophic to cataclysmic.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
So Scotland needs a century of freedom to do so too I guess.
Why? With the current level of power of the Scottish government and several hundred K of migrants per year, combined with a housing cost crisis down South - why can't they make a pitch?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
So Scotland needs a century of freedom to do so too I guess.
Well, maybe. A lot of Ireland's success has been down to sucking up to/attracting investment from the Americans. Would Scotland be able to do the same?
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
Ironic that at least part of the decline is due to the separatists in government...
Yes, if Sindy ever happened - or looked like happening - one of the first big consequences would be large finance/legal firms (and so on) removing themselves from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. So the first effect would be net emigration. And this would continue if the iScottish economy really wobbled
I think there could be serious capital flight and relocation of Scottish-based business which consider the UK as their home market. A "hard" Scexit involving currency and tariff barriers with rUK could be catastrophic. The Sturgeon/Yousaf approach, to decry "Tory austerity" and, presumably, whack up income tax on high earners would turn it from being merely catastrophic to cataclysmic.
The threat of Quebecois independence permanently and definitively moved the centre of the Canadian economy from Montreal to Toronto. As I understand it, Montreal has never really recovered
The same is happening to Barcelona vis a vis Madrid. And of course London has leaked business to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, etc, post Brexit
Separatism has a high price, in the short medium term (in the long term it can be fine: see Ireland)
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
Yes.
And there is nothing that he could do to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.
Getting rid of a Supreme Court Justice is close to impossible. Which is one of many reasons why it was such a terrible idea to turn the court into a legislative body.
SCOTUS, due to Marbury effectively decides how the US constitution should be read. They watch the watchers, and when you get a court as ideological as this one.. Marshall's famous quote beloved of the federalist school of thought in US law was the original troll.
"They watch the watchers"
{Plato enters the chat, wandering about in giant clown shoes}
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
So Scotland needs a century of freedom to do so too I guess.
Well, maybe. A lot of Ireland's success has been down to sucking up to/attracting investment from the Americans. Would Scotland be able to do the same?
If they were to mirror Ireland it would mean slashing taxes on business and attracting big bungs from the EU. Neither option seems very likely in an SNP-led Indy Scotland,given that a successful Indy Referendum would be based on persuading w/c Central Belt voters that the only thing preventing them getting them even more free stuff is Westminster control of the purse-strings.
"It’s only been a few weeks since I wrote that the House of Sturgeon was burning down. But it’s the Polis and not the Fire Brigade who turned up. Suggestions that it had nothing to do with her resignation are risible. Many knew and only the timing was unknown."
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
Most of Norway and Sweden are on more northerly latitudes than Wick, but they seem to do ok on the immigrant front (can’t quite recall where Sweden is on the PB gammon scale atm, sensible COVID liberals or Islamicist hellhole), mainly by dint of having the power to do something about it.
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Unfettered capitalism?
Maybe the unpalatable truth is that for the US economy to flourish as a whole, some people have to lose very badly.
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Fast food receipts and Purdue Pharma sales account for a large percentage of GDP?
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Well there's a simple explanation for that. Almost all the gains have gone to the top 10%, and even more the top 1%.
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Unfettered capitalism?
Maybe the unpalatable truth is that for the US economy to flourish as a whole, some people have to lose very badly.
It's not some though, it's lots. The distribution of income in the US has dramatically widened since the 70s. At the top people are doing great, but huge swathes of the population have not benefitted as much as they might have in the past.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
I think there was a supreme court ruling that the death penalty can only be used for murder, so this would be struck down, unless SCOTUS changes their mind.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 5m We're delighted to announce that our inaugural Welsh Political Tracker Poll will be launching next week!
Keep your eyes peeled for Westminster & Senedd Voting Intentions + much more!
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
I think there was a supreme court ruling that the death penalty can only be used for murder, so this would be struck down, unless SCOTUS changes their mind.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
Suella are you watching? Slot this into the Conservative Party manifesto and you get a landslide.
P.S. I am opposed to all capital sentences, but one couldn't blame the punters for lapping this one up Suella.
Is a dead paedophile allowed to apply to the court of criminal appeal (whatever it is called) if new evidence appaearing to prove innocence turns up? Asking for a friend.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
Suella are you watching? Slot this into the Conservative Party manifesto and you get a landslide.
P.S. I am opposed to all capital sentences, but one couldn't blame the punters for lapping this one up Suella.
Is a dead paedophile allowed to apply to the court of criminal appeal (whatever it is called) if new evidence appaearing to prove innocence turns up? Asking for a friend.
Surely a posthumous apology would suffice.
I am reminded of poor old Stefan Kitchko whenever I see this old nonsense.
My point is, if Suella wants an easy win, and some future PM kudos, she could do much worse that this. The RedWall would love it.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
I think there was a supreme court ruling that the death penalty can only be used for murder, so this would be struck down, unless SCOTUS changes their mind.
Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
Suella are you watching? Slot this into the Conservative Party manifesto and you get a landslide.
P.S. I am opposed to all capital sentences, but one couldn't blame the punters for lapping this one up Suella.
Is a dead paedophile allowed to apply to the court of criminal appeal (whatever it is called) if new evidence appaearing to prove innocence turns up? Asking for a friend.
In America that would depend on his Class determined by his Census
If he has 250,000 denarii, he is of the Senatorial Order and obviously qualifies If he has 100,000, he is Equites and that requires a peoples assembly If he is a Plebeian no chance. Head Count? Chuck his dead body in ditch.
I just read that article in The Economist about US growth that was posted last night.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
Not that odd - wages have taken a smaller share of income. In some respects that's why growth has been good. Low wages have boosted profitability and that has led to greater business investment and stronger growth. The Left was right about trickle-down economics being a con. Who knew?
The terrible life expectancy figures are a result of most of society not benefiting from that growth, and some specific effects relating to the opioids crisis.
Re: the developing, expanding, latest scandal of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for context check out the wiki page for CT's mid-20th century predecessor, Justice Abe Fortas.
In particular, section "Ethics scandal and resignation".
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 5m We're delighted to announce that our inaugural Welsh Political Tracker Poll will be launching next week!
Keep your eyes peeled for Westminster & Senedd Voting Intentions + much more!
Just how big will Labour wins in Wales be? Now we will know
I see Gordon Brown's protégé Douglas Alexander is trying to get back into the Westminster parliament at the next election in East Lothian where Kenny MacAskill is the sitting MP.
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
I think there was a supreme court ruling that the death penalty can only be used for murder, so this would be struck down, unless SCOTUS changes their mind.
This is where ChatGPT is absolutely amazing. My question:
When did the UK last have the peacetime death penalty for anything other than murder/treason?
is quite hard to frame for Google, Wiki
So I just asked ChatGPT, and got this:
"Before the death penalty was abolished in the United Kingdom, it was applied for a wide range of crimes, including offenses other than murder or treason. The death penalty for crimes other than murder or treason was last used in peacetime in England in 1832. On June 27, 1832, the last execution for a crime other than murder or treason took place when Samuel Yarham was hanged for rape in Norwich. Following this execution, the scope of capital punishment was gradually reduced, with the number of offenses punishable by death being decreased in a series of legislative changes throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Eventually, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty for murder in England, Wales, and Scotland, and it was abolished entirely in 1998."
When did the UK last have the peacetime death penalty for anything other than murder/treason?
probably sometime prior to 1861 when the death penalty was reduced to murder, treason, espionage, arson in royal dockyards, and piracy with violence;
I suspect the reality will be sometime in the 1830's but finding out more will require a bit more research as chatgpt is going to be guessing and extrapolating here rather than giving actual facts.
Comments
"My Labour" has crept in a lot recently from SKS
last person I remember using "my" so much was one of your personal favourites from memory
Jo (my LDs) Swinson and look what happened to her
They watch the watchers, and when you get a court as ideological as this one..
Marshall's famous quote beloved of the federalist school of thought in US law was the original troll.
The majority on the court might decide it's not tenable to have a criminal on the bench.
Hopefully a straw in a wider wind.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/amp/farmers-not-affected-by-tesco-s-milk-price-reductions_62409.html
Just had a scoop it jumped out the bowl and hid under my laptop table
This government is shit. And they are pandering to people who don't know how it works to blame everyone else but themselves. But it doesn't work any more. They care that we have zero control. And the government promised them control and can't deliver.
Yet we are supposed to still vote Tory?
It's when you have justices displaying open contempt for the law itself that things start to break down.
"In 2021, there were 14,572 initial decisions made on asylum applications [...]
"Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years. For much of the past decade, around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2021 is the highest grant rate in over thirty years (since 82% in 1990).
"The low number of refusals in 2021 is predominantly related to a 98% decrease in third country refusals (from 2,952 in 2020 to 50 in 2021). A third country refusal refers to the UK determining that it is not the country responsible for considering a person’s asylum claim, to return them to the safe third country in which the person was previously present or with which they have some other connection. The use of this decision outcome has been affected by the UK leaving the EU. Prior to leaving the EU, the UK processed most third country cases in accordance with the Dublin regulation (which applies to all EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein); however, this ceased to apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. New inadmissibility rules, which in part aim to replace the previous operation of the Dublin regulation, were introduced on 1 January 2021 (see the Inadmissibility section of this release below).
[...]
"64 individuals were served with inadmissibility decisions, meaning the UK would not admit the asylum claim for consideration in the UK system, because another country was considered to be responsible for the claim, owing to the claimant’s previous presence in, or connection to a safe country
"There were 11 enforced returns of individuals considered for removal on inadmissibility grounds"
It took a long time for the Republic of Ireland to reverse its population decline after independence and net migration longer to contribute to population growth.
Scotland isn't post-famine Ireland, but the SNP haven't shown much awareness of what choices a government of an independent nation of five million has to make to pay its way in the world. You might argue that their economic plan for independence has a few Trussian undertones.
If I was a Brexit voter whose primary focus was to stop foreigners coming here and taking the jobs, would I not be a bit annoyed with the stats you quoted? People voted to Take Back Control of the border. Which meant padlock it shut. So why is it more widely open than ever???
Sample: "Montana Republicans are aligned behind zoning reform and other pro-housing policies.
Montana's facing a housing shortage and affordability crisis and is passing a slew of bills to fight it.
Pro-housing activists have messaged the policies as fighting California-style urban sprawl.
The deep red state of Montana is full of Republican YIMBYs, and they're using the time-honored bipartisan tradition of mocking California to alleviate their state's housing affordability crisis."
As far as I can tell from the article, they are doing rational things, such as making it easy to build "accessory dwelling units", ADUs for short -- which can be bought for as little as 50K.
There is, by now, a decades-old tradition of appealing to voters in other states by bashing California. Maybe Montanans will bring back that old slogan: "Don't Calfornicate Montana". (Which I perhaps shouldn't like, but do.)
LAB: 48% (+2)
CON: 25% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
REF: 7% (-)
GRN: 5% (-)
via @Omnisis, 12 - 13 Apr
Rishi is mad letting NHS strikes go unsettled without even appearing to try to resolve.
Nearly too late for LEs now
FWIW I suspect here you are right. Either that or "outlier".
I think you will find i said earlier that would impact next set of Polls
https://open.spotify.com/track/3nTA8SnSPcK8uYkG7azKKQ
LAB 44,46.41.45,44,48 Ave 44.71
Con 27,30.30,26.30,25 Ave 28.28
Lead 16.43
Average of Polls in last week of March
Lab 46.63 Con 26.25 Lead 20.38
Lab 48,47,45,45,44,46,46,50,49 vs
Con 27,27,29,22,26,26,27,26
Reduction in lead in 2 weeks 3.95
The same is happening to Barcelona vis a vis Madrid. And of course London has leaked business to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, etc, post Brexit
Separatism has a high price, in the short medium term (in the long term it can be fine: see Ireland)
{Plato enters the chat, wandering about in giant clown shoes}
I wonder what the UK should do...
Over the last month or two, the trend favours the Tories. Is there much else one can read into these polls yet?
https://kennymacaskillmp.scot/the-house-has-burned-down-13-april-2023
"It’s only been a few weeks since I wrote that the House of Sturgeon was burning down. But it’s the Polis and not the Fire Brigade who turned up. Suggestions that it had nothing to do with her resignation are risible. Many knew and only the timing was unknown."
Funny old world.
It's puzzling, the US growth performance since 1990 has been the best of the rich countries. Yet, I've seem plenty of statistics which suggest that US median real incomes have hardly moved, in real terms, over that period.
And, if growth is so good, where do the terrible numbers on life expectancy come from?
In last 20 mins its a 0.00 swing
I think the polls are relatively stable with a slight uptick for the conservatives
The threat of more NHS strikes is so depressing and it will be interesting to see the actual figures from the RCN and other unions on their ballots
You are right, prior to that the trend was with the Tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/14/tory-mps-at-risk-losing-seats-allowed-stand-other-constituencies-next-election
"Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow the death penalty to be enacted on convicted pedophiles.
The Florida House passed HB1297 by a 95-14 vote late Thursday. The legislation will allow rapists of children under the age of 12 to be sentenced to execution without jury unanimity."
https://summit.news/2023/04/14/florida-enables-death-penalty-for-child-sexual-abuse/
P.S. I am opposed to all capital sentences, but one couldn't blame the punters for lapping this one up Suella.
https://eu.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/12/sen-mike-moon-reiterates-support-for-12-year-olds-right-to-marry-missouri-senate/70107573007/
You would hope that the Republican party could discovery some consistency somewhere.
Who on earth is Jo Swinson?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana
I thought the posters appalling, but maybe the regular folk do not.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
5m
We're delighted to announce that our inaugural Welsh Political Tracker Poll will be launching next week!
Keep your eyes peeled for Westminster & Senedd Voting Intentions + much more!
I would expect that Alito and Thomas will say "Yay!". Goresuch will say "states rights".
And ACB, Kavanagh and Roberts... who knows?
Not cheering now are we Nicola !!!
Little Englanders are confused over whether orchids or onions are appropriate.
https://twitter.com/BylineTimes/status/1646836647420411905?t=lTWf-0_nfY3fBGzN_YrEQw&s=19
I am reminded of poor old Stefan Kitchko whenever I see this old nonsense.
My point is, if Suella wants an easy win, and some future PM kudos, she could do much worse that this. The RedWall would love it.
Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State.
@Omnisis
·
1h
3/ Meanwhile, in the two-horse race that is our Best Prime Minister tracker, we’re going to need a photo finish this week …
🔴 Sir Keir Starmer: 33% (-3)
🔵 Rishi Sunak: 33% (+5)
⚪ Don’t Know: 34% (-2)"
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1646861433022345216
If he has 250,000 denarii, he is of the Senatorial Order and obviously qualifies
If he has 100,000, he is Equites and that requires a peoples assembly
If he is a Plebeian no chance.
Head Count? Chuck his dead body in ditch.
The terrible life expectancy figures are a result of most of society not benefiting from that growth, and some specific effects relating to the opioids crisis.
That is a big number to offset that one vote cheat conviction for the guy in Tower Hamlets.
In particular, section "Ethics scandal and resignation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Lothian_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2020s
Based on the appearance of James Marsters in Torchwood.
(I know he has genuinely done otherwise on occassion)
When did the UK last have the peacetime death penalty for anything other than murder/treason?
is quite hard to frame for Google, Wiki
So I just asked ChatGPT, and got this:
"Before the death penalty was abolished in the United Kingdom, it was applied for a wide range of crimes, including offenses other than murder or treason. The death penalty for crimes other than murder or treason was last used in peacetime in England in 1832. On June 27, 1832, the last execution for a crime other than murder or treason took place when Samuel Yarham was hanged for rape in Norwich. Following this execution, the scope of capital punishment was gradually reduced, with the number of offenses punishable by death being decreased in a series of legislative changes throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Eventually, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty for murder in England, Wales, and Scotland, and it was abolished entirely in 1998."
If that is accurate, that is extraordinarily good
I suspect the reality will be sometime in the 1830's but finding out more will require a bit more research as chatgpt is going to be guessing and extrapolating here rather than giving actual facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom