Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
Ah, a remider of that golden age when the Tories put up semi serious candidates for London mayor. I say semi but Goldsmith was barely tumescent, still better than now though.
Semi serious. What short memories people have. His campaign was deeply unpleasant and was alleged to be racist and using dog whistles on more than one occasion. It attracted criticism across the political divide.
Khan may be a waste of space but if I had been in London and had a vote I would have voted for him over the Goldsmith campaign without a second thought.
Goldsmith was a more serious candidate before he ran for mayor. The campaign - his campaign - reduced him.
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
Like many people on here I am a parent. I also have nieces and nephews. To put myself onto one of these dinghies with a high chance of drowning would be a hard decision to take. To put a child - mine, one of my brothers etc - on the boat with me and also put them at high risk of drowning? How bad must it be to take that risk? They are motivated alright - motivated to find a place they can rebuild their lives.
This is what othering does. It makes these people not human. That they aren't making the horrendous choice to get on a boat because to not do so is worse. That we don't need to and worse should not have a human response.
Do I need to post that horrendous photo of Alan Kurdi lying dead on that beach in Greece to illustrate that these people are human? The Tories want to demonise these people. To secure the votes of the pro-golliwog people. I'm not surprised that nobody on QT put their hands up in support. Its shameful and immoral. And sadly for the Tories voters actually do have human feelings still.
To be fair you can say that about their initial journey but not coming from France to UK. That is a personal choice.
According to a number of Human Rights organisations the refugees conditions there are intolerable.
If conditions in France are intolerable, then France is a failed state. And they have oil…
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
Ah, a remider of that golden age when the Tories put up semi serious candidates for London mayor. I say semi but Goldsmith was barely tumescent, still better than now though.
Semi serious. What short memories people have. His campaign was deeply unpleasant and was alleged to be racist and using dog whistles on more than one occasion. It attracted criticism across the political divide.
Khan may be a waste of space but if I had been in London and had a vote I would have voted for him over the Goldsmith campaign without a second thought.
Goldsmith was a more serious candidate before he ran for mayor. The campaign - his campaign - reduced him.
Was "I love bollywood" during the mayoral campaign?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
Ah, a remider of that golden age when the Tories put up semi serious candidates for London mayor. I say semi but Goldsmith was barely tumescent, still better than now though.
Semi serious. What short memories people have. His campaign was deeply unpleasant and was alleged to be racist and using dog whistles on more than one occasion. It attracted criticism across the political divide.
Khan may be a waste of space but if I had been in London and had a vote I would have voted for him over the Goldsmith campaign without a second thought.
Goldsmith was a more serious candidate before he ran for mayor. The campaign - his campaign - reduced him.
And yet, compared with the state London Conservatives are in now, even that ghastly campaign may turn out to be the last hurrah of the better times.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Talking about floods coming into SE England, this is an interesting read. Basically the Thames Barrier is using up its design life more quickly than expected, partly because of you know what, but also the impact of *river* not tidal floods.
Back in the early 1990s, I was doing a walk along the south bank of the Thames and came across the barrier in the process of closing - apparently it was one of the first times they'd done it for a flood warning (my presence there was hopefully an utter coincidence).
There's a chart of closures on wiki, which show that the data is very lumpy - and that fluvial closures are much more common than tidal ones.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
There is a connection with the thread header.
Environmental change is going to be a major drive for refugees this century as large parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa become less habitable and descend into bitter conflict over dwindling resources. It is an interconnected world.
We cannot stop all the conflicts in the world* but we should aim for a more just and stable world if we want to keep migration to a minimum.
*the current conflict in Sudan, a former part of our Empire with long connection to the UK, has created a million refugees in a few months. As far as I can tell it is not an ideological conflict so much as two rival kleptocrat factions fighting for the ability to loot the place. Its hard to see how we could stop it, but should we not take refugees from there?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
Of course all of what you say makes sense, and there are things we can do that are cost effective but on the other hand things like having heat pumps fitted are extremely expensive and, even with the govt grant, not open to most of us. There was a lady on the news the other day complaining that the govt grant did not cover the full cost of the heat pump as she wanted one. As if the state should pay such a large amount of money for someones energy choice. In some cases you need new pipework and radiators.
3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)
Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.
But if we provide them with decent accommodation then that is an additional pull factor which will make the UK more attractive and increase the numbers coming here. The Labour policy of forming an orderly queue sounds quite British but the underlying premise is that those on the boats are the same people or that allowing more in by safe routes will do anything at all to diminish the number coming by boat.
The Rwanda policy is both a moral and practical disgrace and frankly should be abandoned. I do not approve of the courts interfering in public policy, this should be a matter for the ballot box not the court room, but they may be doing the government a favour.
As I have said before the only thing that will work is withdrawing the right to asylum and replacing it with a discretionary grant. As we reach the peak of asylum seekers from Africa as their population explodes I think that this will happen and not just in the UK. But not yet.
I think the right to asylum will have to go - as Matthew Parris said years ago. There are literally billions of people with a proper claim.
The better, impossible, course is for the UN to have a single remit: of having the authority to direct the governance of every member nation so as to remove grounds for fleeing it. It is a disgrace that you can belong to the UN at the same time as giving grounds for your population to flee the government.
BTW, courts did not 'interfere in public policy'. They decided, rightly, that government had broken its own laws in the Rwanda policy. The CA still let them off lightly. I hope the SC will be tougher.
Your second paragraph sounds like a one world dictatorship with unlimited rights to interfere in the domestic affairs of every country. Apart from the right of self determination one only has to think of Afghanistan to realise that such a policy is impractical as well as morally questionable.
On the Court of Appeal I would be surprised if the SC did not reverse the decision. They are much more cautious about ruling policies based on statutes passed by Parliament are "illegal". But that doesn't make the policy right.
My guess is that the SC will affirm and strengthen the CA (majority) judgement.
272. In short, the relocation of asylum-seekers to Rwanda under the MEDP would involve their claims being determined under a system which, on the evidence, has up to now had serious deficiencies, and at the date of the hearing in the Divisional Court those deficiencies had not been corrected and were not likely to be in the short term.
There are enormous deficiencies in the Asylum scheme for those in the UK. It takes unconscionably long to reach decisions and the quality of the decision making is shockingly poor; it takes even longer to review those poor decisions and people spend years in limbo, with crushing uncertainty as well as being denied rights including the right to work. Is the whole scheme illegal or is the duty of the courts to determine rights as best it can within an underfunded system?
Good questions to which I don't know the answer. The courts have the responsibility of answering the question they are asked (literally in the case of the SC) and resolving the dispute before them.
Increasingly in actions involving government the issue is whether policy/law X is in conflict with duty/treaty/law Y.
It would good if the court could issue an order requiring the government to behave in a civilised way, or require ministers to answer the question, but they can't.
Isn’t that exactly the point of judicial review?
The purpose of JR is to ensure that government/state agents are acting lawfully; they can'y be required to play nicely, or answer the question, or stop pandering to the Daily Mail.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
Ah, a remider of that golden age when the Tories put up semi serious candidates for London mayor. I say semi but Goldsmith was barely tumescent, still better than now though.
Semi serious. What short memories people have. His campaign was deeply unpleasant and was alleged to be racist and using dog whistles on more than one occasion. It attracted criticism across the political divide.
Khan may be a waste of space but if I had been in London and had a vote I would have voted for him over the Goldsmith campaign without a second thought.
Goldsmith was a more serious candidate before he ran for mayor. The campaign - his campaign - reduced him.
Perhaps having candidates so crap that they cannot be reduced is a cunning ploy from CCHQ?
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
Like many people on here I am a parent. I also have nieces and nephews. To put myself onto one of these dinghies with a high chance of drowning would be a hard decision to take. To put a child - mine, one of my brothers etc - on the boat with me and also put them at high risk of drowning? How bad must it be to take that risk? They are motivated alright - motivated to find a place they can rebuild their lives.
This is what othering does. It makes these people not human. That they aren't making the horrendous choice to get on a boat because to not do so is worse. That we don't need to and worse should not have a human response.
Do I need to post that horrendous photo of Alan Kurdi lying dead on that beach in Greece to illustrate that these people are human? The Tories want to demonise these people. To secure the votes of the pro-golliwog people. I'm not surprised that nobody on QT put their hands up in support. Its shameful and immoral. And sadly for the Tories voters actually do have human feelings still.
To be fair you can say that about their initial journey but not coming from France to UK. That is a personal choice.
According to a number of Human Rights organisations the refugees conditions there are intolerable.
If conditions in France are intolerable, then France is a failed state. And they have oil…
The most important Human Rights are the rights (absent) in the countries from which people flee.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
There is a connection with the thread header.
Environmental change is going to be a major drive for refugees this century as large parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa become less habitable and descend into bitter conflict over dwindling resources. It is an interconnected world.
We cannot stop all the conflicts in the world* but we should aim for a more just and stable world if we want to keep migration to a minimum.
*the current conflict in Sudan, a former part of our Empire with long connection to the UK, has created a million refugees in a few months. As far as I can tell it is not an ideological conflict so much as two rival kleptocrat factions fighting for the ability to loot the place. Its hard to see how we could stop it, but should we not take refugees from there?
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
I know that. It already had an effect - traffickers had to slash their prices due to the Rwanda possibility.
I look forward to environmentalists achieving a tram system for Leeds. Or an underground.
A transport system for Leeds is one of those things that comes after a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the rehabilitation of the Conservative Party.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
Ah, a remider of that golden age when the Tories put up semi serious candidates for London mayor. I say semi but Goldsmith was barely tumescent, still better than now though.
Semi serious. What short memories people have. His campaign was deeply unpleasant and was alleged to be racist and using dog whistles on more than one occasion. It attracted criticism across the political divide.
Khan may be a waste of space but if I had been in London and had a vote I would have voted for him over the Goldsmith campaign without a second thought.
Goldsmith was a more serious candidate before he ran for mayor. The campaign - his campaign - reduced him.
Goldsmith, together with that other idiot Gummer, thought that charging people to park at a supermarket was a brilliant idea.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
Of course all of what you say makes sense, and there are things we can do that are cost effective but on the other hand things like having heat pumps fitted are extremely expensive and, even with the govt grant, not open to most of us. There was a lady on the news the other day complaining that the govt grant did not cover the full cost of the heat pump as she wanted one. As if the state should pay such a large amount of money for someones energy choice. In some cases you need new pipework and radiators.
Retrofitting heat pumps doesn't seem a great option in many cases (we've looked into it - our extension is heat-pump ready when the boiler needs replacing, but for the rest of the house - 1920s - it would be a lot of work and expense). But for well insulated new-builds it (and solar integrated in the roof and/or solar water heating) seems a no-brainer, the problem being that it adds to the purchase price (though not sure how much really, if designed in?) and benefits take some years.
I don't know if PB allows the posting of twelve foot ladder links, but if anybody wants to read a twitter link you will be pleased to know the 12ft ladder works.
Following up on this. No 10 source tells me: “we told Zac Goldsmith to apologise, but clearly he’s decided to take a different approach. We thank him for his service”
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.
I'm not convinced that people who have already thrown themselves at the mercy of fate are going to be calculating the odds of being sent to Rwanda.
'I thought Destination Kigali was 2/1 against but now its 5/4 on we might as well head back to Murderrapeandtortureania.'
I don't know if PB allows the posting of twelve foot ladder links, but if anybody wants to read a twitter link you will be pleased to know the 12ft ladder works.
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
Like many people on here I am a parent. I also have nieces and nephews. To put myself onto one of these dinghies with a high chance of drowning would be a hard decision to take. To put a child - mine, one of my brothers etc - on the boat with me and also put them at high risk of drowning? How bad must it be to take that risk? They are motivated alright - motivated to find a place they can rebuild their lives.
This is what othering does. It makes these people not human. That they aren't making the horrendous choice to get on a boat because to not do so is worse. That we don't need to and worse should not have a human response.
Do I need to post that horrendous photo of Alan Kurdi lying dead on that beach in Greece to illustrate that these people are human? The Tories want to demonise these people. To secure the votes of the pro-golliwog people. I'm not surprised that nobody on QT put their hands up in support. Its shameful and immoral. And sadly for the Tories voters actually do have human feelings still.
To be fair you can say that about their initial journey but not coming from France to UK. That is a personal choice.
According to a number of Human Rights organisations the refugees conditions there are intolerable.
If conditions in France are intolerable, then France is a failed state. And they have oil…
One of the less talked about elements of the route to the UK via small boats is how the individuals pay for this last step. Some, in the case of Albanians, it is debt bonded to working in illegal cannabis grows etc. However, a significant proportion work illegally in France for many months (some much longer) to fund it.
Following up on this. No 10 source tells me: “we told Zac Goldsmith to apologise, but clearly he’s decided to take a different approach. We thank him for his service”
I don't know if PB allows the posting of twelve foot ladder links, but if anybody wants to read a twitter link you will be pleased to know the 12ft ladder works.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
That's a slightly dangerous argument because it means that people come to expect environmentally beneficial choices to be cheaper when, in many cases, they aren't. It normalises behaviour based solely on personal benefit rather then encouraging some degree of personal altruism for the common good.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
Of course all of what you say makes sense, and there are things we can do that are cost effective but on the other hand things like having heat pumps fitted are extremely expensive and, even with the govt grant, not open to most of us. There was a lady on the news the other day complaining that the govt grant did not cover the full cost of the heat pump as she wanted one. As if the state should pay such a large amount of money for someones energy choice. In some cases you need new pipework and radiators.
Retrofitting heat pumps doesn't seem a great option in many cases (we've looked into it - our extension is heat-pump ready when the boiler needs replacing, but for the rest of the house - 1920s - it would be a lot of work and expense). But for well insulated new-builds it (and solar integrated in the roof and/or solar water heating) seems a no-brainer, the problem being that it adds to the purchase price (though not sure how much really, if designed in?) and benefits take some years.
I tend to agree. I advised my uncle to go for ground source heat pump in their new build in Scotland 15 years ago and its superb. But fitting it into my 1970's semi would be challenging. I'm currently on heating oil, which has its own challenges. One option that has been touted is a hybrid air source plus oil system - the oil tops up the heat from the air source pump as required. I'm not convinced yet, and it might be better to go full new fit pipes, radiators etc. We are having an extension built shortly and that will be better spec than the rest of the house, plus a woodburner (I live on the very edge of town, so its not such a bad thing).
Going green is is often going to entail upfront expense. Buying a new, much more efficient car should save money eventually, but it may be a long way down the line. And its important to consider the full costs in cash and environmental terms too. The car doesn't just magically appear - there are costs in the manufacture etc to consider too.
Opinion polls show that more people support the Rwanda policy than oppose it. So either the Question Time audience wasn't representative, or they felt pressured into supporting a particular point of view in public.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
The Govt. needs to come out as PRO domestic energy production. If that means more exploration in the North Sea, so be it.
Climate obsessives seem to me to be too ready to hand over our energy security to those who don't always mean us well.
Rapidly exploiting and burning our finite remaining quantity of oil and gas reserves (which are, of course, also needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc.) seems the perfect policy for making our children completely dependent on those with much larger reserves than us. And that's before you even consider the environmental consequences for them.
Opinion polls show that more people support the Rwanda policy than oppose it. So either the Question Time audience wasn't representative, or they felt pressured into supporting a particular point of view in public.
Question Time not being representative, surely not....
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
Of course all of what you say makes sense, and there are things we can do that are cost effective but on the other hand things like having heat pumps fitted are extremely expensive and, even with the govt grant, not open to most of us. There was a lady on the news the other day complaining that the govt grant did not cover the full cost of the heat pump as she wanted one. As if the state should pay such a large amount of money for someones energy choice. In some cases you need new pipework and radiators.
Retrofitting heat pumps doesn't seem a great option in many cases (we've looked into it - our extension is heat-pump ready when the boiler needs replacing, but for the rest of the house - 1920s - it would be a lot of work and expense). But for well insulated new-builds it (and solar integrated in the roof and/or solar water heating) seems a no-brainer, the problem being that it adds to the purchase price (though not sure how much really, if designed in?) and benefits take some years.
Fitting as new build makes alot of sense, as it does Solar (I'd avoid rent-a-roof though if buying a home with solar on), however availability is an issue as there is limited capacity at the moment.
For new build estates fitting would be cheaper than retro fitting, especially as housebuilders could negotiate a better price due to economies of scale.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Sky showing why their cricket coverage is superior to BBC, C4, BT....They currently have a brilliant segment with James Foster explaining wicketkeeping from a former world class wicketkeeper and somebody still very much involved at the elite end of the game.
Opinion polls show that more people support the Rwanda policy than oppose it. So either the Question Time audience wasn't representative, or they felt pressured into supporting a particular point of view in public.
Question Time not being representative, surely not....
It was Exeter wasn't it ? Which strikes me as the last sort of place you want to be associated with a policy such as "Rwanda".
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.
But that's the tell that this isn't a serious policy.
At the moment, even if all the other ducks were in a row, there's currently space for a couple of hundred British boat people in Rwanda. That would fill up faster than word would get out, and what happens then?
I've been in schools that have decided they need to reset behavioural norms, which often boils down to setting detentions for all the things the school has claimed it was setting detentions for all along.
When planning this, wise schools accept that they are going to need massive capacity for the first week or two. Sports halls potentially full of misbehaving children reflecting on their misdemeanours. After that, everything settles down again, but the initial massive capacity is essential.
Foolish schools say "we're going to give detentions for every naughty deed" but don't plan for the temporary surge. The result is that it becomes impossible to give all the promised detentions, the system collapses, and the school is often worse off than before.
If the government really wants to scare people into not crossing the Channel, they need to go big. Otherwise they're better off not trying. And a combination of the grimness of going big and the unwillingness of the government to spend the money means that they aren't going big.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
The “foreign born mother” statistic can be misleading. If two UK citizens spend a short period of time abroad and have a child, who is then raised in the UK, that child is foreign born. There’s a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany, but they’re not German: it’s just that there have been periods where lots of British people worked in Germany (often with the armed forces). For example, Boris Johnson is foreign (US) born, so he’ll add considerably to the foreign born father statistic!
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Todd Murphy (not played much, for obvious, Lyon-shaped reasons). But the Aussies might think of the English approach with Head and Smith as the Root equivalent.
Sky showing why their cricket coverage is superior to BBC, C4, BT....They currently have a brilliant segment with James Foster explaining wicketkeeping from a former world class wicketkeeper and somebody still very much involved at the elite end of the game.
Foz was and is a keeping legend.
I get the arguments about free to air etc, but Sky's coverage is superb, and the knowledge that you can pick up from segments like this is fantastic.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Todd Murphy (not played much, for obvious, Lyon-shaped reasons). But the Aussies might think of the English approach with Head and Smith as the Root equivalent.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
That's a slightly dangerous argument because it means that people come to expect environmentally beneficial choices to be cheaper when, in many cases, they aren't. It normalises behaviour based solely on personal benefit rather then encouraging some degree of personal altruism for the common good.
I'm a dangerous person
There are two aspects - things that save money and are green and things that cost money and are green.
My parents (my mum is a massive climate change sceptic) also live very frugally, due to not having had much money most of their lives, athough now - with mortgage paid off and reasonable pensions - they're comfortable. Their carbon footprint is pretty small because they don't buy pointless tat, my dad grows a lot of their veg, they're 'tight' about heating etc - only occupied rooms, internal doors closed etc. My dad cycles, at 80, where most people drive.
But there's no way they're going to spend money, generally, on big environmental supporting changes. They got double glazing in 2000, for example, using an inheritance to pay for it.
There are things we can all do that will help and have little to no cost or even offer savings. There are also things that cost a lot and only pay back over an extended period, like insulation (apart from the low hanging fruit like draught exclusion and loft insulation). Those do require government support, I think, but there can be creativity such as making them loans that a repaid through bill savings (you get say 1/3 of the savings on your bill until the loan is paid off, rest goes to pay loan).
Sky showing why their cricket coverage is superior to BBC, C4, BT....They currently have a brilliant segment with James Foster explaining wicketkeeping from a former world class wicketkeeper and somebody still very much involved at the elite end of the game.
Foz was and is a keeping legend.
I get the arguments about free to air etc, but Sky's coverage is superb, and the knowledge that you can pick up from segments like this is fantastic.
Kumar Sangakkara is one of the best "signings" Sky have made in recent years. Amazing player, still involved with the elite game and fantastic ability at explaining things, while coming across an in entertaining manner.
Compare to turns on wireless and losses IQ points listening to Tuffers....especially trying to explain Hundred / T20 cricket.
Sky showing why their cricket coverage is superior to BBC, C4, BT....They currently have a brilliant segment with James Foster explaining wicketkeeping from a former world class wicketkeeper and somebody still very much involved at the elite end of the game.
Foz was and is a keeping legend.
I get the arguments about free to air etc, but Sky's coverage is superb, and the knowledge that you can pick up from segments like this is fantastic.
Kumar Sangakkara is one of the best "signings" Sky have made in recent years. Amazing player, still involved with the elite game and fantastic ability at explaining things, while coming across an in entertaining manner.
Compare to turns on wireless and losses IQ points listening to Tuffers....
A way better than bitter old man Pieterson. (Who would have loved playing Bazball, I thnk)
The Govt. needs to come out as PRO domestic energy production. If that means more exploration in the North Sea, so be it.
Climate obsessives seem to me to be too ready to hand over our energy security to those who don't always mean us well.
Rapidly exploiting and burning our finite remaining quantity of oil and gas reserves (which are, of course, also needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc.) seems the perfect policy for making our children completely dependent on those with much larger reserves than us. And that's before you even consider the environmental consequences for them.
But as you will know as well as I the infrastructure of North Sea exploitation will not be there forever. If smallish fields reachable from the current infrastructure are not exploited now they never will be. The opportunity to use our own gas rather than someone else’s will be lost with consequences for our balance of payments.
If you are so committed to the environment that the overall objective of reducing global warming overrides everything else you may shrug your shoulders at this and think that is a good thing. But it’s dishonest of those who think that there isn’t a price for the UK.
In Ashes news, I see Lyon was on crutches. Unless thats a cunning bluff/plan, I think he's done for the tour. The last match ends on 31st of July. I don't see how you go from crutches to playing test cricket in less than four weeks.
Who is the Australian's back up spinner these days? I don't think Ashton Agar is on this tour?
Todd Murphy (not played much, for obvious, Lyon-shaped reasons). But the Aussies might think of the English approach with Head and Smith as the Root equivalent.
Googles...Todd Mur....
Another point, Australia will have to declare 9 down in their second innings now.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Interviews with those coming over on boats do not suggest they have a good knowledge of UK immigration policy or practice. While I’m sure the Daily Mail will put the first Rwanda flight on its front page, I don’t think the Daily Mail sells well in the refugee camps of northern France.
The Rwanda scheme will take up to 100 per year. 2022 saw nearly 46000 coming over on boats. Thus, the risk of going to Rwanda will be about 1 in 460. In other words, you’ve got a 459/460 chance of not going to Rwanda. Why on Earth are those odds going to put anyone off?
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
The Govt. needs to come out as PRO domestic energy production. If that means more exploration in the North Sea, so be it.
Climate obsessives seem to me to be too ready to hand over our energy security to those who don't always mean us well.
Rapidly exploiting and burning our finite remaining quantity of oil and gas reserves (which are, of course, also needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc.) seems the perfect policy for making our children completely dependent on those with much larger reserves than us. And that's before you even consider the environmental consequences for them.
But as you will know as well as I the infrastructure of North Sea exploitation will not be there forever. If smallish fields reachable from the current infrastructure are not exploited now they never will be. The opportunity to use our own gas rather than someone else’s will be lost with consequences for our balance of payments.
If you are so committed to the environment that the overall objective of reducing global warming overrides everything else you may shrug your shoulders at this and think that is a good thing. But it’s dishonest of those who think that there isn’t a price for the UK.
It may be difficult or expensive to mothball or rebuild infrastructure, but it certainly isn't impossible. When fossil fuels are gone, though, they are gone. I've been repeatedly told that some supply of hydrocarbons is essential for uses other than as fuels, so it is quite obvious to me that the more of our finite reserves we burn now, the more dependent our children will be on supplies from elsewhere.
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
Sky showing why their cricket coverage is superior to BBC, C4, BT....They currently have a brilliant segment with James Foster explaining wicketkeeping from a former world class wicketkeeper and somebody still very much involved at the elite end of the game.
Foz was and is a keeping legend.
I get the arguments about free to air etc, but Sky's coverage is superb, and the knowledge that you can pick up from segments like this is fantastic.
Story at Essex, was that he wasn’t always the easiest person to get on with! Hopefully he’s mellowed.
Russia is decreasing the number of personnel at Zaporizhzhia NPP - Ukrainian intelligence @DI_Ukraine. Reportedly, Russian personnel is instructed to leave the plant by 5th July, and the number of military on the plant and in temporarily occupied Enerhodar is decreasing as well.
Russia has announced in the UN Security Council they are not going to blow up the NPP - the same people who swore they would not invade Ukraine.
The situation is a global threat. And it is getting increasingly more dangerous. Terrorist state Russia is holding Ukraine and the whole world hostage.
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
The “foreign born mother” statistic can be misleading. If two UK citizens spend a short period of time abroad and have a child, who is then raised in the UK, that child is foreign born. There’s a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany, but they’re not German: it’s just that there have been periods where lots of British people worked in Germany (often with the armed forces). For example, Boris Johnson is foreign (US) born, so he’ll add considerably to the foreign born father statistic!
My son is also foreign born (in Germany), but he'll have his work cut out to achieve Johnson's rate of reproduction.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
They could play one of the best wicket keepers in the world and let Bairstow focus on his batting.
A really fit Stokes is like getting 3 players for one. But right now his bowling is so restricted Root is putting in more overs and his batting average is declining. He remains a good fielder if not quite as brilliant as he was. Does he need a rest? He is such a talisman for the team it is hard to imagine but maybe yes.
If we can get to within 50 we still have a chance as we like chasing large totals. Also it appears that Lyon won't be able to bowl for the rest of the game which reduces AUS bowling options.
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
Would Woakes be in with a shout if Stokes wasn't the captain ?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
They could play one of the best wicket keepers in the world and let Bairstow focus on his batting.
A really fit Stokes is like getting 3 players for one. But right now his bowling is so restricted Root is putting in more overs and his batting average is declining. He remains a good fielder if not quite as brilliant as he was. Does he need a rest? He is such a talisman for the team it is hard to imagine but maybe yes.
The England batting lineup would be incredibly weak. I think you would have to play a Woakes and / or Ali then to give more batting cover. Or is there another specialist batsman who could come in? All other aytempts seem to have failed e.g. Lawrence.
Well Bairstow and Brook will need to put on plenty of runs. Has there ever been a sharper batting gap between No 7 Bairstow and No 8 (Broad) in test match history ?
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
Would Woakes be in with a shout if Stokes wasn't the captain ?
Would add to the bowling.
Woakes in English conditions is always useful with bat & ball, but at same time is a bit of a backward step effectively saying we don't have anybody like him who is younger and potentially got upside of being effective both home and away.
Its also yet another fast-medium 85mph right arm seamer.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.
The Government has not proposed any plan involving anything approaching an evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination, so your comment seems moot.
Although Stokes didn't get many runs, that hour he batted last night I think was absolutely crucial. If he had gone, I think England might well have been all-out by now, as Australia were on the tear.
Well Bairstow and Brook will need to put on plenty of runs. Has there ever been a sharper batting gap between No 7 Bairstow and No 8 (Broad) in test match history ?
8 is too high for Broad these days, that is for sure. I also fear this is finally looking a series too far for Jimmy. Sacrilege, I know. But replacing him with Woakes or Curran would help.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.
Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.
They could play one of the best wicket keepers in the world and let Bairstow focus on his batting.
A really fit Stokes is like getting 3 players for one. But right now his bowling is so restricted Root is putting in more overs and his batting average is declining. He remains a good fielder if not quite as brilliant as he was. Does he need a rest? He is such a talisman for the team it is hard to imagine but maybe yes.
On a related note, I had my first visit to Lord's yesterday. I'm still buzzing. What a lovely, lovely experience. The finest sporting venue in the world? I can't think of a finer one. It was a different experience from Old Trafford. I love Old Trafford, but its principle virtue is proximity. Watching cricket at Old Trafford (or indeed at Trent Bridge, or, I expect, at Headingley or Edgbaston) is more fun, more raucous; the atmosphere at Lord's at 5.30pm is like that at Old Trafford at 11.10am. The excitement at Lord's rarely gets above an animated hubbub. But don't mistake that for people not enjoying themselves tremendously. I spoke to a lot of interesting people, and what came across in every conversation was a feeling of how fortunate everyone felt to be doing something so giddyingly pleasant.
And what a day's play. First of all, the fact we got a whole day's play. I had been monitoring the forecast all week; the difference between the BBC forecast (rain all day; might get a bit of play after 5) and the Met Office (probably dry from midday) was puzzling. In the even, it was better than both, but the BBC was way out. But the play; a long slog back from England being right out of it to roughly parity. Australia clearly attempted to stifle Bazball with astonishingly defensive fields with everyone out on the boundary; all England needed to do - which they largely did - was tootle along in singles and doubles. Granted the wickets were all down to pointless slogs, but, hey, most wickets are given away. I said at the start of the day that England would rattle through the five remaining wickets before lunch and that the middle order would still be in at the close, but I don't think I really believed it would happen.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Well Bairstow and Brook will need to put on plenty of runs. Has there ever been a sharper batting gap between No 7 Bairstow and No 8 (Broad) in test match history ?
8 is too high for Broad these days, that is for sure. I also fear this is finally looking a series too far for Jimmy. Sacrilege, I know. But replacing him with Woakes or Curran would help.
I don't think Curran is the answer at test match level. An attack containing "enforcer" Robinson and Curran (both on the very slow end of seam bowlers) plus an aging / slowing Broad, when that red cherry has lost a bit of shine and becoming soft, it will be far too easy for batsman.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
Do you really believe that?
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
Precisely. If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.
The Government has not proposed any plan involving anything approaching an evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination, so your comment seems moot.
Neither did Australia at first. Australia did a trial of transferring people, overcame the legal challenges, got the system up and running, then expanded it to all arrivals by boat. By the end of that, the boat journeys stopped and nobody has drowned in Australian waters due to coming across on a dodgy boat since 2012. Many lives have been saved via that policy, as tough as it may be.
The UK is still at the legal challenges stage. Doesn't mean that it can't be as successful in its goals, if rolled out, post-challenges.
Comments
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
If conditions in France are intolerable, then France is a failed state. And they have oil…
And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.
There's a chart of closures on wiki, which show that the data is very lumpy - and that fluvial closures are much more common than tidal ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
Environmental change is going to be a major drive for refugees this century as large parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa become less habitable and descend into bitter conflict over dwindling resources. It is an interconnected world.
We cannot stop all the conflicts in the world* but we should aim for a more just and stable world if we want to keep migration to a minimum.
*the current conflict in Sudan, a former part of our Empire with long connection to the UK, has created a million refugees in a few months. As far as I can tell it is not an ideological conflict so much as two rival kleptocrat factions fighting for the ability to loot the place. Its hard to see how we could stop it, but should we not take refugees from there?
If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.
Climate obsessives seem to me to be too ready to hand over our energy security to those who don't always mean us well.
Following up on this. No 10 source tells me: “we told Zac Goldsmith to apologise, but clearly he’s decided to take a different approach. We thank him for his service”
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1674706268479528960?s=20
'I thought Destination Kigali was 2/1 against but now its 5/4 on we might as well head back to Murderrapeandtortureania.'
Haha !
That definitely is a funny statement,
Going green is is often going to entail upfront expense. Buying a new, much more efficient car should save money eventually, but it may be a long way down the line. And its important to consider the full costs in cash and environmental terms too. The car doesn't just magically appear - there are costs in the manufacture etc to consider too.
For new build estates fitting would be cheaper than retro fitting, especially as housebuilders could negotiate a better price due to economies of scale.
At the moment, even if all the other ducks were in a row, there's currently space for a couple of hundred British boat people in Rwanda. That would fill up faster than word would get out, and what happens then?
I've been in schools that have decided they need to reset behavioural norms, which often boils down to setting detentions for all the things the school has claimed it was setting detentions for all along.
When planning this, wise schools accept that they are going to need massive capacity for the first week or two. Sports halls potentially full of misbehaving children reflecting on their misdemeanours. After that, everything settles down again, but the initial massive capacity is essential.
Foolish schools say "we're going to give detentions for every naughty deed" but don't plan for the temporary surge. The result is that it becomes impossible to give all the promised detentions, the system collapses, and the school is often worse off than before.
If the government really wants to scare people into not crossing the Channel, they need to go big. Otherwise they're better off not trying. And a combination of the grimness of going big and the unwillingness of the government to spend the money means that they aren't going big.
I get the arguments about free to air etc, but Sky's coverage is superb, and the knowledge that you can pick up from segments like this is fantastic.
There are two aspects - things that save money and are green and things that cost money and are green.
My parents (my mum is a massive climate change sceptic) also live very frugally, due to not having had much money most of their lives, athough now - with mortgage paid off and reasonable pensions - they're comfortable. Their carbon footprint is pretty small because they don't buy pointless tat, my dad grows a lot of their veg, they're 'tight' about heating etc - only occupied rooms, internal doors closed etc. My dad cycles, at 80, where most people drive.
But there's no way they're going to spend money, generally, on big environmental supporting changes. They got double glazing in 2000, for example, using an inheritance to pay for it.
There are things we can all do that will help and have little to no cost or even offer savings. There are also things that cost a lot and only pay back over an extended period, like insulation (apart from the low hanging fruit like draught exclusion and loft insulation). Those do require government support, I think, but there can be creativity such as making them loans that a repaid through bill savings (you get say 1/3 of the savings on your bill until the loan is paid off, rest goes to pay loan).
Compare to turns on wireless and losses IQ points listening to Tuffers....especially trying to explain Hundred / T20 cricket.
I jinxed it now haven't I.....
If you are so committed to the environment that the overall objective of reducing global warming overrides everything else you may shrug your shoulders at this and think that is a good thing. But it’s dishonest of those who think that there isn’t a price for the UK.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/64959131
The Rwanda scheme will take up to 100 per year. 2022 saw nearly 46000 coming over on boats. Thus, the risk of going to Rwanda will be about 1 in 460. In other words, you’ve got a 459/460 chance of not going to Rwanda. Why on Earth are those odds going to put anyone off?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jun/30/zac-goldsmith-resigns-as-minister-blaming-sunak-for-abandoning-global-leadership-role-on-climate-and-nature-uk-politics-live
279-4 looks good, 279-5 looks shaky
Russia has announced in the UN Security Council they are not going to blow up the NPP - the same people who swore they would not invade Ukraine.
The situation is a global threat. And it is getting increasingly more dangerous. Terrorist state Russia is holding Ukraine and the whole world hostage.
https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1674713097913749507
England don't bat deep with this lineup, unlike when they say Ali and Woakes still to come. Any runs after Brook and Bairstow will be "bonus" runs.
- 29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
- 28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
- 23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
- 11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything elseI hope.
That he spent tens of billions of his own money to do this has been even more self-sacrificing.
A really fit Stokes is like getting 3 players for one. But right now his bowling is so restricted Root is putting in more overs and his batting average is declining. He remains a good fielder if not quite as brilliant as he was.
Does he need a rest? He is such a talisman for the team it is hard to imagine but maybe yes.
Would add to the bowling.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
Its also yet another fast-medium 85mph right arm seamer.
(1) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
(2) https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I also fear this is finally looking a series too far for Jimmy. Sacrilege, I know. But replacing him with Woakes or Curran would help.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
It was a different experience from Old Trafford. I love Old Trafford, but its principle virtue is proximity. Watching cricket at Old Trafford (or indeed at Trent Bridge, or, I expect, at Headingley or Edgbaston) is more fun, more raucous; the atmosphere at Lord's at 5.30pm is like that at Old Trafford at 11.10am. The excitement at Lord's rarely gets above an animated hubbub. But don't mistake that for people not enjoying themselves tremendously. I spoke to a lot of interesting people, and what came across in every conversation was a feeling of how fortunate everyone felt to be doing something so giddyingly pleasant.
And what a day's play. First of all, the fact we got a whole day's play. I had been monitoring the forecast all week; the difference between the BBC forecast (rain all day; might get a bit of play after 5) and the Met Office (probably dry from midday) was puzzling. In the even, it was better than both, but the BBC was way out. But the play; a long slog back from England being right out of it to roughly parity. Australia clearly attempted to stifle Bazball with astonishingly defensive fields with everyone out on the boundary; all England needed to do - which they largely did - was tootle along in singles and doubles. Granted the wickets were all down to pointless slogs, but, hey, most wickets are given away. I said at the start of the day that England would rattle through the five remaining wickets before lunch and that the middle order would still be in at the close, but I don't think I really believed it would happen.
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/#kp3
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
The UK is still at the legal challenges stage. Doesn't mean that it can't be as successful in its goals, if rolled out, post-challenges.