Oh we're back on immigration. As has been demonstrably proven over the past few decades, the UK doesn't want to stop immigration.
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
Want is perhaps the wrong word. As a nation we are quite schizophrenic on this. The UK does not want mass immigration but it needs it. Needs trump wants. So it would be far better if we recognised that fact and planned for it with infrastructure and housing, rather than pretending we will stop it.
"Public must be spared huge burden of net zero, says Tony Blair Former PM says UK can play its part in climate change fight but its efforts risk being dwarfed by impact of countries such as China"
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
No, I favour Rwanda (or somewhere similar). But actually DO IT. Properly. As Australia did
You can’t say “it won’t work” because we’re so pathetic we’ve not even tried it. Let’s try it. If it fails, we think again
Is it cruel? Yes. But it is much LESS cruel than what we have now, and if successful it will solve the problem entirely, unlike these ridiculous non-solution solutions from the likes of @Rochdale et al
But the UK's current plan is configured to fail.
Partly because the government couldn't be arsed to get its legal ducks lined up beforehand. But mostly because of simple arithmetic.
Rwanda haven't agreed to take every irregular migrant into the UK- partly they don't have the processing capacity but mostly because they're not idiots. And the number they have agreed to take is such a tiny fraction of the current numbers that it will have minimal deterrent effect.
It's as absurd as if the government said "we're going to send people to prison for dropping litter" without building any more prisons. There's no point issuing blood curdling threats if you don't have the means to carry them through. You just look weaker.
And no, I don't have an answer, beyond the incomplete ones of processing claims more competently than the UK currently does. But "ineffectual and honest" is a step up from "ineffectual screaming to bamboozle the gullible", which is where the Home Office currently is.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
No, I favour Rwanda (or somewhere similar). But actually DO IT. Properly. As Australia did
You can’t say “it won’t work” because we’re so pathetic we’ve not even tried it. Let’s try it. If it fails, we think again
Is it cruel? Yes. But it is much LESS cruel than what we have now, and if successful it will solve the problem entirely, unlike these ridiculous non-solution solutions from the likes of @Rochdale et al
But the UK's current plan is configured to fail.
Partly because the government couldn't be arsed to get its legal ducks lined up beforehand. But mostly because of simple arithmetic.
Rwanda haven't agreed to take every irregular migrant into the UK- partly they don't have the processing capacity but mostly because they're not idiots. And the number they have agreed to take is such a tiny fraction of the current numbers that it will have minimal deterrent effect.
It's as absurd as if the government said "we're going to send people to prison for dropping litter" without building any more prisons. There's no point issuing blood curdling threats if you don't have the means to carry them through. You just look weaker.
And no, I don't have an answer, beyond the incomplete ones of processing claims more competently than the UK currently does. But "ineffectual and honest" is a step up from "ineffectual screaming to bamboozle the gullible", which is where the Home Office currently is.
It's\ like Tories campaigning on the need to be hard on crime while closing courts and reducing funding for the justice system. It means a permanent grievance to be whipped up at every election. A client vote. Wherther that is intentional is another matter. But one has one's suspicions.
Oh we're back on immigration. As has been demonstrably proven over the past few decades, the UK doesn't want to stop immigration.
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
Want is perhaps the wrong word. As a nation we are quite schizophrenic on this. The UK does not want mass immigration but it needs it. Needs trump wants. So it would be far better if we recognised that fact and planned for it with infrastructure and housing, rather than pretending we will stop it.
Yep that is true. It is the great open secret. And politicians can't do as you say (it seems, for some unknown reason) because that would be admitting the situation as it is.
I haven’t seen try last one on Britain elects yet so don’t know the figures.
TLDR: relatively poor for Tories given most swings are based on the terrible recent locals, a bit meh for Labour though not bad, and pretty good for Lib Dems.
Of note an apparent reinforcement of the north-south trend in polling with Labour doing better in the North and the Lib Dems progressing both in the blue wall and the SW.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
No RP, I’ve never travelled…
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
"Public must be spared huge burden of net zero, says Tony Blair Former PM says UK can play its part in climate change fight but its efforts risk being dwarfed by impact of countries such as China"
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
So, send them to Rwanda
It could be that enthusiasm for this 'solution' is driven by a genuine belief that it's the least bad of a range of bad options. Or it could be that it's driven by a subliminal feeling that 'they' are not quite as fully human as the 'us' here debating it.
It's hard to know for sure because the 1st will always be claimed and the 2nd never admitted to.
I don't think Rwanda is even intended as a solution. It's a political touchstone where you are for it or against it on ideological grounds. And where the people behind the idea think it's a wedge that will benefit them politically.
Oh we're back on immigration. As has been demonstrably proven over the past few decades, the UK doesn't want to stop immigration.
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
Want is perhaps the wrong word. As a nation we are quite schizophrenic on this. The UK does not want mass immigration but it needs it. Needs trump wants. So it would be far better if we recognised that fact and planned for it with infrastructure and housing, rather than pretending we will stop it.
Yep that is true. It is the great open secret. And politicians can't do as you say (it seems, for some unknown reason) because that would be admitting the situation as it is.
TBF the Scottish political parties (but not all of them) are a b it further along with that concept.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
We do work with out European partners - we've done several deals with the French over the years. e.g.:
"The UK committed to providing €72.2 million for UK–French border control (around £62.2 million) in 2022/23. A Joint Leaders' Declaration issued after the UK–France leaders' summit in March 2023 included further financial commitments for the UK: around £476 million between 2023/24 and 2025/26."
" We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system."
I agree with this. But I fear it ignores the fact that the numbers coming over have increased vastly over the last five years. I fail to see how we can increase the systems to cope with the massive influx.
If you want an example on the politics of this, look at prison ships. Often proposed (or used) as an emergency measure by governments and lambasted by the opposition. And then proposed by that opposition when they get power, and lambasted by the new opposition who quite liked them when they were in power...
We should work with European countries in the Mediterranean, along with friendly thugs in the Middle East and North Africa, who we should pay to prevent large numbers coming through.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
So, send them to Rwanda
It could be that enthusiasm for this 'solution' is driven by a genuine belief that it's the least bad of a range of bad options. Or it could be that it's driven by a subliminal feeling that 'they' are not quite as fully human as the 'us' here debating it.
It's hard to know for sure because the 1st will always be claimed and the 2nd never admitted to.
I don't think Rwanda is even intended as a solution. It's a political touchstone where you are for it or against it on ideological grounds. And where the people behind the idea think it's a wedge that will benefit them politically.
This is largely right, I think.
The numbers are so pathetic that it's difficilt to regard it as anything other than a pheromone trap for unTories.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
No RP, I’ve never travelled…
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
Wowsers. They don't need to obtain a visa "in the country whose rulers want to kill them". They flee. They end up in another country. One which may actually have direct flights to the UK. There isn't a ferry to Dover from Kabul. They get a visa *in that country*.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
What the world probably really needs now is another America. A newly settled country full of wide open spaces and limitless opportunity (OK, please bear with me as I whitewash the genocidal impact on native American societies that entailed, but bear with me).
Somewhere that throws its arms wide open to migrants and refugees from all over the world. A true melting pot, and a rapidly growing economy full of opportunity. Somewhere that could grow from virtually nothing to half a billion people in a few decades.
The old rich countries of Europe and North America could then close their borders if they wished, and everyone would go to the new Shangri La. Which would, of course, rapidly become the global hegemon.
Sadly we don't have that but there's certainly a gap in the market for ambitious countries which see the opportunities afforded by immigration.
What I don't know, and I'd be grateful if someone could point to the stats, is whether indeed extra immigration is putting a strain on housing, the NHS, etc.
And/or is the government planning for no increase in population, knowing the population will grow, one way or another, legally or illegally, and then those of a right wing persuasion pick up that ball and run with it, blaming it on the foreigners.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
If this is the strategy, Labour can forget Scotland. The stench of decay lingers.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
It’s just a means for liberal lefties like @foxy and @Rochdale to pretend they have a humane solution, and allow them to continue feeling virtuous as they attack the Fascist Tories. It is of course, and as has been pointed out, no solution at all
Genuine question - do you think the Tories have a solution? Lets park the invective and look at what is actually happening.
No legal routes from Afghanistan. Despite all we have done to that country and leaving behind people who worked for us. Has it stopped them and others arriving? No.
There is no humane solution to people fleeing war and death and misery. Other than to invest heavily in those places to make them fit to live in. That would take global coordinated effort to deliver - and we're long past such a thing happening never mind Britain leading it.
I keep reading that Britain is a "soft touch". Really? Asylum seekers can't work. Get a pre-paid card with £little on it to pay for food and clothes and essentials. Get interned in all kinds of places where the locals don't want them. In limbo for years whilst the Home Office goes about its slow process.
We don't offer a soft touch. The opposite. And I am very happy to discuss workable solutions to this problem. The problem is that its a culture wars wedge issue and the facts have gone out the window.
In failed states, there are too many powerful people who wish to keep them as failed states. And conquering them is now seen as more trouble than it is worth.
We spent 18 years trying to turn Afghanistan into a half-decent place to live in, but those with power in that country prefer to keep it in the 7th century.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
A simple rule of banks must tell customers why they are closing accounts, even in suspected money laundering cases, would make a big difference. Forget fears about tipping off, the big money launderers are well ahead of that nowadays anyway, and probably less impacted by AML than genuine small businesses that happen to deal with cash.
That will require a change in the law.
Tipping off is a criminal offence punishable by up to 7 years in prison
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
No RP, I’ve never travelled…
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
Wowsers. They don't need to obtain a visa "in the country whose rulers want to kill them". They flee. They end up in another country. One which may actually have direct flights to the UK. There isn't a ferry to Dover from Kabul. They get a visa *in that country*.
If you flee from Afghanistan to Turkey, when you book your Jet2 flight do you need a passport and a visa to fly to the UK? So they turn up at the British Embassy in Ankara to obtain a visa? Whilst that is being processed where are they waiting because a Visa application for an Afghan wanting to fly to the UK issued from the British Embassy in Turkey isn’t going to be quick.
And when 10,000 turn up in Ankara to do this and the Turkish gov gets a bit pissed off what happens then.
There is no simple solution and just saying “we need more safe routes” sounds great but until there is a workable solution to safe routes that doesn’t piss off other countries, whose cooperation we need for this, then just saying safe routes is just pointless.
What I don't know, and I'd be grateful if someone could point to the stats, is whether indeed extra immigration is putting a strain on housing, the NHS, etc.
And/or is the government planning for no increase in population, knowing the population will grow, one way or another, legally or illegally, and then those of a right wing persuasion pick up that ball and run with it, blaming it on the foreigners.
I have no idea but realistically increased immigration must extend the strain on NHS and education
Immigrants become ill and their children need education
Ideally they would be processed quickly and allowed to work
Mr. Eabhal, I'll believe there's integrated public transport in Leeds when I see it.
Parties of all colours have dicked about with tram proposals that led nowhere but blew millions putting plans together, while there's always a billion for HS2 (near London) or the Underground (in London).
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
If this is the strategy, Labour can forget Scotland. The stench of decay lingers.
It is very obvious and indeed quite open with both Blair and Brown heading for the HOL
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
If this is the strategy, Labour can forget Scotland. The stench of decay lingers.
Do any of the parties have anything sensible to say on Scottish energy?
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%
Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
Of course you are a great medical expert.
Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now. Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
Our iX loses maybe 1-2% of range, certainly no more, in below freezing temperatures as it uses heat from the electric motors to condition the battery pack. It also uses waste heat from the drivetrain and a heat pump to warm the interior. It's got a refrigerant compressor, two heat exchangers, two evaporators and a condenser to control all this.
Dunno about Teslas but Mercs do something similar.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
You have kids. Would you stick them on a small boat that has a high chance of sinking if there was a safe alternative?
Currently we endure literal thousands coming across every few days. We're now looking at increasingly silly and expensive ways to house them whilst they get processed. So STOP THE BOATS has only made the boats come faster - because there are no legal routes.
So why not honour our debt to Afghans and open up a legal route to claim asylum? They're coming anyway.
The disadvantage of local offices is you get more claimants. The advantage is that they are there not here.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
No RP, I’ve never travelled…
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
Wowsers. They don't need to obtain a visa "in the country whose rulers want to kill them". They flee. They end up in another country. One which may actually have direct flights to the UK. There isn't a ferry to Dover from Kabul. They get a visa *in that country*.
If you flee from Afghanistan to Turkey, when you book your Jet2 flight do you need a passport and a visa to fly to the UK? So they turn up at the British Embassy in Ankara to obtain a visa? Whilst that is being processed where are they waiting because a Visa application for an Afghan wanting to fly to the UK issued from the British Embassy in Turkey isn’t going to be quick.
And when 10,000 turn up in Ankara to do this and the Turkish gov gets a bit pissed off what happens then.
There is no simple solution and just saying “we need more safe routes” sounds great but until there is a workable solution to safe routes that doesn’t piss off other countries, whose cooperation we need for this, then just saying safe routes is just pointless.
You do know how many people *are already* in countries like Turkey? You post as if having safe routes would encourage refugees. They are already there. You don't flee from your home because the British embassy in Ankara will offer you a visa to get interned in a tent in Britain. You do so because your home has just been bombed.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Erm, you don't travel much, do you. You can't buy a ticket on Jet2 and travel here unless you have the legal right to travel here. The British passport is one of the most widely accepted in the world - we can travel pretty freely, yet there are countries where we need a visa. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
No RP, I’ve never travelled…
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
Wowsers. They don't need to obtain a visa "in the country whose rulers want to kill them". They flee. They end up in another country. One which may actually have direct flights to the UK. There isn't a ferry to Dover from Kabul. They get a visa *in that country*.
If you flee from Afghanistan to Turkey, when you book your Jet2 flight do you need a passport and a visa to fly to the UK? So they turn up at the British Embassy in Ankara to obtain a visa? Whilst that is being processed where are they waiting because a Visa application for an Afghan wanting to fly to the UK issued from the British Embassy in Turkey isn’t going to be quick.
And when 10,000 turn up in Ankara to do this and the Turkish gov gets a bit pissed off what happens then.
There is no simple solution and just saying “we need more safe routes” sounds great but until there is a workable solution to safe routes that doesn’t piss off other countries, whose cooperation we need for this, then just saying safe routes is just pointless.
It’s not pointless. It makes them feel better about themselves. “I really care about refugees AND I have a solution!”
Even tho it is, for multiple reasons, no solution at all. As you say
Perhaps “Rwanda” does the same for a certain kind of right winger. But that’s not me. I really would send them to Rwanda (or an equivalent) and I genuinely believe it could work. It just needs intense political determination and ruthlessness and a willingness to overrule liberal bleating. Neither of these is in HMG’s skill set
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
Or maybe realise that climate change measures have to be affordable to voters, and not just the wealthy and those who can afford Teslas
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
It depends what you are trying to stop.
Economic migration will always happen so long as we are a more attractive place to live and work than the alternative
Asylum claims will happen while other countries are unstable / dictatorial.
The purpose of international development funding is to try and reduce the “push” factors for asylum
Having local offices reduces the number crossing the channel specifically
(I can see that the UK only and no other European country having local offices could be problematic in terms of directing flows).
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
No I don't think I'd approve of sending asylum seekers to an unpleasant remote island.
Oh we're back on immigration. As has been demonstrably proven over the past few decades, the UK doesn't want to stop immigration.
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
Correction here.
Politicians dont want to stop it, that is not the same as the UK doesn't want to stop it
Correction to your correction: if we really wanted it we would vote in politicians to do it (cf Brexit).
Correction to your correction of my correction
No we wouldn't because we are voting on a barrel load of issues not just a single one. The brexit referendum was a case in point 52% voted out which was a lot higher vote than ukip ever got because on every other issue people vote on in a general election they were useless.
Also stopping small boats coming =/= wanting no immigration
Its not as simple as you make out and it is erroneous to say if people want it they will vote for it when no party addressing higher wants is prepared to address that particular issue. Also the tories have been saying they will deal with it and have won a couple of elections lately. Just happens they are as we have seen been lying through their teeth. Doing a lib dem thing of saying one thing then doing the opposite
If you flee from Afghanistan to Turkey, when you book your Jet2 flight do you need a passport and a visa to fly to the UK? So they turn up at the British Embassy in Ankara to obtain a visa? Whilst that is being processed where are they waiting because a Visa application for an Afghan wanting to fly to the UK issued from the British Embassy in Turkey isn’t going to be quick.
And when 10,000 turn up in Ankara to do this and the Turkish gov gets a bit pissed off what happens then.
There is no simple solution and just saying “we need more safe routes” sounds great but until there is a workable solution to safe routes that doesn’t piss off other countries, whose cooperation we need for this, then just saying safe routes is just pointless.
No, it's a multifaceted problem, and allowing safe routes is one element in the possible solution. There's a tendency for people to say to any aspect of the possible solution "That won't work because of the other aspects".
As others have said, international coordination, perhaps on the lines proposed by the Commission (accept lots of refugees or pay other EU countries to accept them), is another piece of the puzzle. Ultimately, though, the only way it gets fixed is if there's a global overseas development effort to make staying at home more attractive. Do we see mass migration from China? No, because life there is reasonably promising unless you're one of the groups that the regime picks on (who would still be eligible for asylum here).
Absolutely nobody thinks that there's an easy solution to controlling the influx of asylum seekers and other migrants. Nobody. And it's entirely unsurprising that a right-wing government should go for a 'let's get tough' policy. That's a perfectly legitimate aim (albeit thus far ineffective and, often, illegal).
However, what is unforgiveable is the rhetoric used to describe our incomers by Braverman and her acolytes and, to a lesser but not insignificant extent, Sunak. Surely it's possible to have a 'tough' policy without dehumanising, insulting, degrading and 'othering' those who wish to seek a better life?
That's a choice the government has made, and it fuels racism and unpleasantness. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
Or maybe realise that climate change measures have to be affordable to voters, and not just the wealthy and those who can afford Teslas
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Of course he is right - he usually is from his throne way up above the day to day political bickering.
The simple truth is that the world is in transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. This was always inevitable as you can't burn a finite resource forever. So we need to both be driving our own transition and enabling others to do the same.
Much of the global economy gets built around the current technological platform. The industrial revolution forced agrarian economies to mechanise. The oil age saw economies transformed by the petrodollar and the service of the petrodollar. And in the mid 21st century the next change is from petrodollar to renewables.
Blair's institute is literally named to address these issues of global change. He isn't saying "abandon the green crap" as some of the media reports suggest. The institute has 4 key points that global leaders needs to address to ensure that the whole world can manage this transition away from fossil fuel economies:
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
The Australian situation was different because they were prepared to do tow backs which is a measure far beyond this government's level of fortitude. Also they had Christmas Island which is outside the Australian Migration Zone. Informal immigrants could be taken there without any access to or oversight from the Australian immigration system.
The tories are too scared and weak to do tow backs and there is no analogous location to Christmas Island they can use.
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
Oh we're back on immigration. As has been demonstrably proven over the past few decades, the UK doesn't want to stop immigration.
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
Correction here.
Politicians dont want to stop it, that is not the same as the UK doesn't want to stop it
Correction to your correction: if we really wanted it we would vote in politicians to do it (cf Brexit).
Correction to your correction of my correction
No we wouldn't because we are voting on a barrel load of issues not just a single one. The brexit referendum was a case in point 52% voted out which was a lot higher vote than ukip ever got because on every other issue people vote on in a general election they were useless.
Also stopping small boats coming =/= wanting no immigration
Its not as simple as you make out and it is erroneous to say if people want it they will vote for it when no party addressing higher wants is prepared to address that particular issue. Also the tories have been saying they will deal with it and have won a couple of elections lately. Just happens they are as we have seen been lying through their teeth. Doing a lib dem thing of saying one thing then doing the opposite
We are a sovereign democracy. If people valued stopping immigration and/or the boats above other issues then it would be acted upon. But, probably just like us all on here, we don't. We don't really care.
It doesn't impact us and, let's say there is a community, Boston, Lincs, which it really, really does impact (does it? No idea) then they will be sacrificed for the greater good. Just like dairy farmers.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
Or maybe realise that climate change measures have to be affordable to voters, and not just the wealthy and those who can afford Teslas
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Of course he is right - he usually is from his throne way up above the day to day political bickering.
The simple truth is that the world is in transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. This was always inevitable as you can't burn a finite resource forever. So we need to both be driving our own transition and enabling others to do the same.
Much of the global economy gets built around the current technological platform. The industrial revolution forced agrarian economies to mechanise. The oil age saw economies transformed by the petrodollar and the service of the petrodollar. And in the mid 21st century the next change is from petrodollar to renewables.
Blair's institute is literally named to address these issues of global change. He isn't saying "abandon the green crap" as some of the media reports suggest. The institute has 4 key points that global leaders needs to address to ensure that the whole world can manage this transition away from fossil fuel economies:
Agree, but he is saying that it must be affordable to voters and on our own it simply will not have an effect, hence global solutions are the only way forward
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
A simple rule of banks must tell customers why they are closing accounts, even in suspected money laundering cases, would make a big difference. Forget fears about tipping off, the big money launderers are well ahead of that nowadays anyway, and probably less impacted by AML than genuine small businesses that happen to deal with cash.
That will require a change in the law.
Tipping off is a criminal offence punishable by up to 7 years in prison
Yes of course. The whole thing does not work and the legislation needs change.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
Or maybe realise that climate change measures have to be affordable to voters, and not just the wealthy and those who can afford Teslas
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Blair's not wrong, but why can't we be at the vanguard of that solution? Instead, we're pissing about feeling sorry for ourselves. We make nowt in this country. I've just been clearing out some of my late father in law's numerous sheds. The number of old keyrings, knives, tools, and ornaments I've found that have "Made In England" stamped on them made me smile. All of those items are made in China now, the China that doesn't give a toss about climate change. If we make nothing, and won't invest or take risks in finding new markets and energy technologies, then how can we prosper as a nation? Where are the voters going to find jobs and build a life? You sound like you're happy to see the country decline even further because you're too scared to be bold, and you want our leaders to be the same. .
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
The French are under no obligation to take them
So why are we?
They are arriving clandestinely under their own steam not, officially, being transported here by the French government.
If somebody bought a kayak from Sports Direct in Folkestone and paddled it to Grande-Synthe they could certainly claim asylum when they got there.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
No I don't think I'd approve of sending asylum seekers to an unpleasant remote island.
So there we have it. The one proven successful and humane method of preventing drownings and illegal migration: and you don’t accept that either.
So in the end your solution is: Let them all in
Just admit it and be done with it. This is pathetic
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
The key learnings from Australia are:
Whatever godforsaken country hosts the detainees has you over a barrel. It costs Australia $AUS 4 million per detainee on Nauru per year
At the end of it all, you're still responsible for looking after the refugee.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
Or maybe realise that climate change measures have to be affordable to voters, and not just the wealthy and those who can afford Teslas
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Of course he is right - he usually is from his throne way up above the day to day political bickering.
The simple truth is that the world is in transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. This was always inevitable as you can't burn a finite resource forever. So we need to both be driving our own transition and enabling others to do the same.
Much of the global economy gets built around the current technological platform. The industrial revolution forced agrarian economies to mechanise. The oil age saw economies transformed by the petrodollar and the service of the petrodollar. And in the mid 21st century the next change is from petrodollar to renewables.
Blair's institute is literally named to address these issues of global change. He isn't saying "abandon the green crap" as some of the media reports suggest. The institute has 4 key points that global leaders needs to address to ensure that the whole world can manage this transition away from fossil fuel economies:
Agree, but he is saying that it must be affordable to voters and on our own it simply will not have an effect, hence global solutions are the only way forward
Of course global solutions. The tragedy is that we're not in a position of leadership. This is *the* epochal change in the global economy this century. An awful lot of wind, solar, tidal and battery storage kit is going to be manufactured.
We should be in a perfect position to exploit this - brilliant scientists to do the R&D, world-leading universities who can spin out the technology, the highest tech manufacturing capacity, and a local environment where we can test and perfect.
But we're not doing any of that. Instead of capitalism - invest, develop, deliver a return on the investment - we get spivs encouraging right wing shills to bleat "we can't afford this" whilst they make a killing selling off the technology and the manufacturing to people outside the UK.
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
The French are under no obligation to take them
So why are we?
Really? Surely you understand a difference between asylum seekers going to a country and claiming asylum, and law enforcement forcing them against their will to a different country?
And France take in more asylum seekers than the UK regardless.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
No I don't think I'd approve of sending asylum seekers to an unpleasant remote island.
So there we have it. The one proven successful and humane method of preventing drownings and illegal migration: and you don’t accept that either.
So in the end your solution is: Let them all in
Just admit it and be done with it. This is pathetic
Have you even looked at the issues with your preferred Rwanda scheme? It doesn't work on any level - Rwanda can't take them, we can't process them through our courts, we can't process their claims, we can't intern them.
Australia had working solutions. We do not. You want to copy Australia - I get that. But we can't just tow a boat from the channel to Rwanda, we need to process them so that they can be sent there.
So we will need to hire an awful lot of Border Force staff, build large internment facilities (on former RAF bases which all seem to be in rural Tory constituencies), spend heavily on the criminal justice system so that we can first clear the backlog of claims and then process claims quickly. And likely invest heavily in Rwanda to create a UK zone where we can build more internment facilities - as the Rwandan government can't or won't.
Unless those things happen, there is not workable Rwanda policy. Who is stopping it from happening? Its Tory MPs - they don't want a barge and they don't want the RAF base used and they don't want to pay for civil servants. They attack "leftie lawyers" but most asylum claims are stuck in the Home Office, not rejection in the courts.
Good clip, but - has twitter changed its logo? From a bird to a massive X? Why?
Looooong story. Imagine Citizen Kane had renamed his newspaper "Rosebud";
To understand Musk's renewed obsession with X and focus on financial services, you REALLY need to understand the X/Confinity merger that became PayPal.
And, particularly, the Peter Thiel-led coup that kicked Musk out as CEO/Chief Strategist.
This hotel is intensely odd. It’s seriously chic. Wouldn’t be out of place in a very prosperous town in the Dolomites. It’s all designer sofas and fresh burrata and monsoon showers and granite and iron fire pits
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
No I don't think I'd approve of sending asylum seekers to an unpleasant remote island.
So there we have it. The one proven successful and humane method of preventing drownings and illegal migration: and you don’t accept that either.
So in the end your solution is: Let them all in
Just admit it and be done with it. This is pathetic
A robust long term solution needs a new international framework. That won't be next Wednesday so in the meantime we should look for modest but real improvements. This will involve us working better with France and upgrading our existing systems. We hardly take any refugees. Taking more doesn't mean the world and his wife beating a path here and the UK sinking under the weight of it. That's what I find a bit pathetic tbh. The notion of poor little 'us' threatened by vast hordes of 'them' who'd kill their granny to come and live here. It's a paranoid nonsense imo rolled out to feed and justify xenophobic rhetoric/policy.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Sending people to Rwanda is wrong on every level and there's no obligation whatsoever on people saying this to answer the question of what they would do instead.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
How do you feel about the Australian system? Pack them off to a fairly unpleasant remote-ish island?
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
No I don't think I'd approve of sending asylum seekers to an unpleasant remote island.
So there we have it. The one proven successful and humane method of preventing drownings and illegal migration: and you don’t accept that either.
So in the end your solution is: Let them all in
Just admit it and be done with it. This is pathetic
Have you even looked at the issues with your preferred Rwanda scheme? It doesn't work on any level - Rwanda can't take them, we can't process them through our courts, we can't process their claims, we can't intern them.
Israel sent 4,000 asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda. It could be done if the government wants to do it but they clearly don't.
Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.
Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?
Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.
Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.
Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
The funny thing is we see Russian trolls every week and yet people deny Russian attempts to influence our politics.
You see how bad they are at it every week, yet some people think Russia's ability to manipulate our electorate exceeds Peter Mandelson and Lynton Crosby rolled into one.
I wonder if there's a Russian PB, where Western trolls come in on a Saturday morning and are swiftly banned after several posts on how badly the invasion is going.
Since we're talking greenery, the latest graph from John Burn-Murdoch seems apposite;
Yes, the balance of cost now vs. costs in the future has to be balanced. Yes, there needs to be thought about effects on rich and poor.
But, overall, this stuff is, shall we say, The Will Of The People? Just not the will of the right wing media bubble.
The relative enthusiasm for green policies in the UK is striking, though I expect that is the point of how the data is presented (as ever with these things, we don't know what isn't being presented). It'd be interesting also to see where some other countries sit.
Minor point - I'm pretty sure Americans fly way more than everyone else because their country is huge and their trains are, by and large, shite - so the opposition to taxing based on journeys made is understandably unpopular.
This hotel is intensely odd. It’s seriously chic. Wouldn’t be out of place in a very prosperous town in the Dolomites. It’s all designer sofas and fresh burrata and monsoon showers and granite and iron fire pits
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
This hotel is intensely odd. It’s seriously chic. Wouldn’t be out of place in a very prosperous town in the Dolomites. It’s all designer sofas and fresh burrata and monsoon showers and granite and iron fire pits
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.
However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.
Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
That's because they got in bed with the Tories. Labour would be a better fit with most of their members and supporters.
...and then they lose their support from Conservative protest voters, they lose those MPs, and we go 'round again.
Currently the LD's are protest sponges: other than high-ticket issues like the Iraq war nobody is interested in their policies. I like the soppy bunnies but even I don't know their policies (please don't tell me). They function as means for Labour and Conservative voters to register a protest vote. The minute they pick a side, that goes away and they die.
This hotel is intensely odd. It’s seriously chic. Wouldn’t be out of place in a very prosperous town in the Dolomites. It’s all designer sofas and fresh burrata and monsoon showers and granite and iron fire pits
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
Hmmm
Which city?
Chernivitsi
I've just looked it up - a proper crossroads-of-history city, and very pretty place. I guess western Ukraine is generally more prosperous, and it's a university town - maybe explaining its relative prosperity?
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
Perhaps we could have a policy of treating women in prison who go into labour with some human decency and proper medical care and also treating their innocent children humanely.
Childbirth is hard enough without being treated like shit during and after it.
What I don't know, and I'd be grateful if someone could point to the stats, is whether indeed extra immigration is putting a strain on housing, the NHS, etc.
And/or is the government planning for no increase in population, knowing the population will grow, one way or another, legally or illegally, and then those of a right wing persuasion pick up that ball and run with it, blaming it on the foreigners.
On the first question, assuming people need a roof (and medical treatment at various times), surely the numbers coming in answer it themselves?
On the second question, no, I don't think it's a right wing plot to build no infrastructure - the lack of water infrastructure (new reservoirs etc.) stems from the zealous application of EU waterways directives and other environmental directives by the Environment Agency, which of course sadly we still adhere to. The purpose behind such measures is to promote 'water saving' rather than us just 'taking water for granted'.
I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.
However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.
Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
That's because they got in bed with the Tories. Labour would be a better fit with most of their members and supporters.
...and then they lose their support from Conservative protest voters, they lose those MPs, and we go 'round again.
Currently the LD's are protest sponges: other than high-ticket issues like the Iraq war nobody is interested in their policies. I like the soppy bunnies but even I don't know their policies (please don't tell me). They function as means for Labour and Conservative voters to register a protest vote. The minute they pick a side, that goes away and they die.
Their flagship policy last time was cancel Brexit without a 2nd vote, which forced Labour to move from 'better softer Brexit' to offering that 2nd vote. This played into the hands of the ghastly 'Boris', allowing him to consolidate the Leave vote at the GE and win his big majority.
This hotel is intensely odd. It’s seriously chic. Wouldn’t be out of place in a very prosperous town in the Dolomites. It’s all designer sofas and fresh burrata and monsoon showers and granite and iron fire pits
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
Perhaps we could have a policy of treating women in prison who go into labour with some human decency and proper medical care and also treating their innocent children humanely.
Childbirth is hard enough without being treated like shit during and after it.
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
Perhaps we could have a policy of treating women in prison who go into labour with some human decency and proper medical care and also treating their innocent children humanely.
Childbirth is hard enough without being treated like shit during and after it.
I worked for a while in a hospital where we sometimes had prisoners as patients, usually as a result of fights. They were handcuffed to the bed, albeit with plenty of room to move if necessary and a warden sat beside the bed. Seemed to work fine. Pretty sure no-one ever escaped, or even tried to.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Labour are in deep trouble if they keep using this kind of language. It's defeatist, adds currency to right-wing talking points, an leaves an open goal for the Tories to seize a positive narrative.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
Starmer is taking his advice from Blair and Brown so expect a similar attitude
That's just so small minded. What this country needs is a right good kick up the arse. We're a rich, well educated country with a benevolent climate, no earthquakes or volcanoes with plenty of tidal and wind opportunities. We should be flying high, at the forefront of the green age. Instead, we're fucking around, whining about immigration, Farage, banking and ULEZ and about how we've pissed all our money up the wall. Our whole political establishment is wanked out. You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
You're mistaking 'doing something' for 'doing the right things' - yes, tidal represents an ample, dependable, durable, and relatively cheap source of renewable power, but we're not doing tidal - we're doing subsidy-grubbing overseas wealth funds chucking up Chinese-produced wind turbines. We need to be doing the right things, not just 'doing something' for the sake of it.
Hard measures to deter boat crossings would almost certainly cause instances of injustice to individuals at the case-by-case level.
However, such is the scale of the problem, and the need to create a strategic, credible deterrent to illicit crossings, that I favour such measures nonetheless.
We cannot let ideology overcome pragmatism as I think the end outcome of that is very dark.
"Public must be spared huge burden of net zero, says Tony Blair Former PM says UK can play its part in climate change fight but its efforts risk being dwarfed by impact of countries such as China"
Except for Brexit Blair could almost be in Sunak's Cabinet
Blair is a narcissistic weasel who says a lot of stuff that's carefully tailored to his target audience, but its sincerity solely in the eye of the beholder.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
We do work with out European partners - we've done several deals with the French over the years. e.g.:
"The UK committed to providing €72.2 million for UK–French border control (around £62.2 million) in 2022/23. A Joint Leaders' Declaration issued after the UK–France leaders' summit in March 2023 included further financial commitments for the UK: around £476 million between 2023/24 and 2025/26."
" We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system."
I agree with this. But I fear it ignores the fact that the numbers coming over have increased vastly over the last five years. I fail to see how we can increase the systems to cope with the massive influx.
If you want an example on the politics of this, look at prison ships. Often proposed (or used) as an emergency measure by governments and lambasted by the opposition. And then proposed by that opposition when they get power, and lambasted by the new opposition who quite liked them when they were in power...
We should work with European countries in the Mediterranean, along with friendly thugs in the Middle East and North Africa, who we should pay to prevent large numbers coming through.
Since we're talking greenery, the latest graph from John Burn-Murdoch seems apposite;
Yes, the balance of cost now vs. costs in the future has to be balanced. Yes, there needs to be thought about effects on rich and poor.
But, overall, this stuff is, shall we say, The Will Of The People? Just not the will of the right wing media bubble.
Or, shouldn't we be applauding from this how moderate and reasoned British politics actually is?
Even Nigel Farage - the bête noire of the British Left - looks like a Teddy bears picnic compared to populists virtually anywhere else in the West.
We don't know how lucky we are.
I also suspect, like with taxes, people are very supportive of more as long as they are not paying. This is probably where Blair is coming from. To keep the public onside and who wouldn’t support it when the continual is message sent out that all we need to do is move to renewables for cheap energy.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
The quid pro quo would be that we did rule that anyone who applied by boat crossing would be refused asylum, , on the grounds that they had failed to make an application by the established routes (processing centres, embassies and by post). It would not deal with the challenges of masses of applications, but it would make the small boats option unattractive - why risk your life for the certainty of refusal when there is a legal option readily available?
But we cannot refuse them under the current laws because we cannot return them to countries where their lives are at risk and there is no shortage of them. And that even assumes that the hell hole they left would actually take them back. All too often they wouldn't.
Comments
Now imagine your passport is Syrian. You need a visa to get almost anywhere. And you can't get a visa to come to the UK. At all. When we say "no legal routes" it means that we will not grant a visa to travel. No visa, no getting on the plane.
Partly because the government couldn't be arsed to get its legal ducks lined up beforehand. But mostly because of simple arithmetic.
Rwanda haven't agreed to take every irregular migrant into the UK- partly they don't have the processing capacity but mostly because they're not idiots. And the number they have agreed to take is such a tiny fraction of the current numbers that it will have minimal deterrent effect.
It's as absurd as if the government said "we're going to send people to prison for dropping litter" without building any more prisons. There's no point issuing blood curdling threats if you don't have the means to carry them through. You just look weaker.
And no, I don't have an answer, beyond the incomplete ones of processing claims more competently than the UK currently does. But "ineffectual and honest" is a step up from "ineffectual screaming to bamboozle the gullible", which is where the Home Office currently is.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1684713513460043776?s=46
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1684713841475670016?s=46
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1684714323162099712?s=46
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1684714911304212480?s=46
https://twitter.com/sevenoakslibdem/status/1684803477153714177?s=46
I haven’t seen try last one on Britain elects yet so don’t know the figures.
TLDR: relatively poor for Tories given most swings are based on the terrible recent locals, a bit meh for Labour though not bad, and pretty good for Lib Dems.
Of note an apparent reinforcement of the north-south trend in polling with Labour doing better in the North and the Lib Dems progressing both in the blue wall and the SW.
You said that the safe route was to arrive on a plane or a ferry. If you cannot do this then it’s not a safe route for people needing asylum from countries where we require visas is it? So to expand this to a safe route it would require removing visa requirements - I can’t see any problems with that.
So again please lay out a plan for a workable “safe route” which helps an Afghan or Syrian that avoids them needing to use small boats.
To save you time we can rule out allowing them to apply at the British embassy in the country whose rulers want to kill them.
Net-zero is a huge opportunity for the UK. It offers an opportunity to transform our cities and towns with integrated public transport, walking and cycling, along with a beautiful public realm.
Our favourable position in the North Sea/Atlantic, and large coastline, gives areas and ports like Aberdeen, Fife, Invergordon, Teesside, Blyth, Hull, Essex, Kent, Swansea, Mostyn, Barrow, Norfolk/Suffolk chance to create employment, UK-wide supply chains, and to export energy to the continent.
If Labour do take this line, our only hope is that the Tories, and particularly Sunak, spots this opening and exploits it. Force the agenda back to progress rather than catering to the 20th century mindset and economy.
It's interesting to contrast this topic with a thread a while back on the Scottish plan to abolish juries for rape trials to improve the conviction rate. We all (rightly imo) decried this as a bad idea, end of, and none of those denunciations was countered with a 'but what would you do to get more rape convictions then?'
A video played during state TV coverage of North Korea's military parade Thursday shows a shirtless soldier using his head to hammer a nail into a tree trunk
https://twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/1684814331509399552
Meissner effect or bust. Day 2
An absolute emotional rollercoaster. We've been back so many times, I've lost count
The first reaction to make Lanarkite (PbO + PbSO4) is running in the furnace! We opted to do 80% in an open air alumina crucible and 20% in a sealed quartz tube..
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684821396411809792
Somewhere that throws its arms wide open to migrants and refugees from all over the world. A true melting pot, and a rapidly growing economy full of opportunity. Somewhere that could grow from virtually nothing to half a billion people in a few decades.
The old rich countries of Europe and North America could then close their borders if they wished, and everyone would go to the new Shangri La. Which would, of course, rapidly become the global hegemon.
Sadly we don't have that but there's certainly a gap in the market for ambitious countries which see the opportunities afforded by immigration.
And/or is the government planning for no increase in population, knowing the population will grow, one way or another, legally or illegally, and then those of a right wing persuasion pick up that ball and run with it, blaming it on the foreigners.
God give me strength.
It would be more convincing than all of the previous attempts.
We spent 18 years trying to turn Afghanistan into a half-decent place to live in, but those with power in that country prefer to keep it in the 7th century.
Tipping off is a criminal offence punishable by up to 7 years in prison
And when 10,000 turn up in Ankara to do this and the Turkish gov gets a bit pissed off what happens then.
There is no simple solution and just saying “we need more safe routes” sounds great but until there is a workable solution to safe routes that doesn’t piss off other countries, whose cooperation we need for this, then just saying safe routes is just pointless.
Tis one is looking interesting, if only because it will apparently be easy for others to reproduce. I hope it is genuine.
Immigrants become ill and their children need education
Ideally they would be processed quickly and allowed to work
Parties of all colours have dicked about with tram proposals that led nowhere but blew millions putting plans together, while there's always a billion for HS2 (near London) or the Underground (in London).
It worked. Would you approve of that if we had the option?
Yes - vote LibDem!
You're pinning your hopes on Blair and Brown?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66333091
Cause and effect (ok, probably not).
Dunno about Teslas but Mercs do something similar.
Even tho it is, for multiple reasons, no solution at all. As you say
Perhaps “Rwanda” does the same for a certain kind of right winger. But that’s not me. I really would send them to Rwanda (or an equivalent) and I genuinely believe it could work. It just needs intense political determination and ruthlessness and a willingness to overrule liberal bleating. Neither of
these is in HMG’s skill set
Even if we did everything suggested, it is not going to stop climate change when others including Russia and China refuse to agree as was seen last week at the G20
Blair is correct in saying this needs a global solution
Economic migration will always happen so long as we are a more attractive place to live and work than the alternative
Asylum claims will happen while other countries are unstable / dictatorial.
The purpose of international development funding is to try and reduce the “push” factors for asylum
Having local offices reduces the number crossing the channel specifically
(I can see that the UK only and no other European country having local offices could be problematic in terms of directing flows).
No we wouldn't because we are voting on a barrel load of issues not just a single one.
The brexit referendum was a case in point 52% voted out which was a lot higher vote than ukip ever got because on every other issue people vote on in a general election they were useless.
Also stopping small boats coming =/= wanting no immigration
Its not as simple as you make out and it is erroneous to say if people want it they will vote for it when no party addressing higher wants is prepared to address that particular issue. Also the tories have been saying they will deal with it and have won a couple of elections lately. Just happens they are as we have seen been lying through their teeth. Doing a lib dem thing of saying one thing then doing the opposite
As others have said, international coordination, perhaps on the lines proposed by the Commission (accept lots of refugees or pay other EU countries to accept them), is another piece of the puzzle. Ultimately, though, the only way it gets fixed is if there's a global overseas development effort to make staying at home more attractive. Do we see mass migration from China? No, because life there is reasonably promising unless you're one of the groups that the regime picks on (who would still be eligible for asylum here).
However, what is unforgiveable is the rhetoric used to describe our incomers by Braverman and her acolytes and, to a lesser but not insignificant extent, Sunak. Surely it's possible to have a 'tough' policy without dehumanising, insulting, degrading and 'othering' those who wish to seek a better life?
That's a choice the government has made, and it fuels racism and unpleasantness. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The simple truth is that the world is in transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. This was always inevitable as you can't burn a finite resource forever. So we need to both be driving our own transition and enabling others to do the same.
Much of the global economy gets built around the current technological platform. The industrial revolution forced agrarian economies to mechanise. The oil age saw economies transformed by the petrodollar and the service of the petrodollar. And in the mid 21st century the next change is from petrodollar to renewables.
Blair's institute is literally named to address these issues of global change. He isn't saying "abandon the green crap" as some of the media reports suggest. The institute has 4 key points that global leaders needs to address to ensure that the whole world can manage this transition away from fossil fuel economies:
https://www.institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/shifting-trillions-four-critical-actions-to-take-after-paris-climate-summit
The tories are too scared and weak to do tow backs and there is no analogous location to Christmas Island they can use.
It doesn't impact us and, let's say there is a community, Boston, Lincs, which it really, really does impact (does it? No idea) then they will be sacrificed for the greater good. Just like dairy farmers.
You sound like you're happy to see the country decline even further because you're too scared to be bold, and you want our leaders to be the same.
.
If somebody bought a kayak from Sports Direct in Folkestone and paddled it to Grande-Synthe they could certainly claim asylum when they got there.
So in the end your solution is: Let them all in
Just admit it and be done with it. This is pathetic
Yes, the balance of cost now vs. costs in the future has to be balanced. Yes, there needs to be thought about effects on rich and poor.
But, overall, this stuff is, shall we say, The Will Of The People? Just not the will of the right wing media bubble.
Whatever godforsaken country hosts the detainees has you over a barrel. It costs Australia $AUS 4 million per detainee on Nauru per year
At the end of it all, you're still responsible for looking after the refugee.
We should be in a perfect position to exploit this - brilliant scientists to do the R&D, world-leading universities who can spin out the technology, the highest tech manufacturing capacity, and a local environment where we can test and perfect.
But we're not doing any of that. Instead of capitalism - invest, develop, deliver a return on the investment - we get spivs encouraging right wing shills to bleat "we can't afford this" whilst they make a killing selling off the technology and the manufacturing to people outside the UK.
And France take in more asylum seekers than the UK regardless.
Australia had working solutions. We do not. You want to copy Australia - I get that. But we can't just tow a boat from the channel to Rwanda, we need to process them so that they can be sent there.
So we will need to hire an awful lot of Border Force staff, build large internment facilities (on former RAF bases which all seem to be in rural Tory constituencies), spend heavily on the criminal justice system so that we can first clear the backlog of claims and then process claims quickly. And likely invest heavily in Rwanda to create a UK zone where we can build more internment facilities - as the Rwandan government can't or won't.
Unless those things happen, there is not workable Rwanda policy. Who is stopping it from happening? Its Tory MPs - they don't want a barge and they don't want the RAF base used and they don't want to pay for civil servants. They attack "leftie lawyers" but most asylum claims are stuck in the Home Office, not rejection in the courts.
To understand Musk's renewed obsession with X and focus on financial services, you REALLY need to understand the X/Confinity merger that became PayPal.
And, particularly, the Peter Thiel-led coup that kicked Musk out as CEO/Chief Strategist.
Here's how that happened. 1/🧵
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1683808576328937472
The people look rich. They drink Aperol spritzers at noon on Friday. The sun shines on the bruschetta
Yet this is a pretty obscure Bukovinan Ukrainian city, in the middle of the terrible Ukrainian war, in an already poor country (GDP per capita: $5000)
Someone here is making a lot of money. The hotel owner and his clients. This elegant little city is about 30 minutes from the Romanian and Moldovan borders. The coffee is excellent
Hmmm
Minor point - I'm pretty sure Americans fly way more than everyone else because their country is huge and their trains are, by and large, shite - so the opposition to taxing based on journeys made is understandably unpopular.
Currently the LD's are protest sponges: other than high-ticket issues like the Iraq war nobody is interested in their policies. I like the soppy bunnies but even I don't know their policies (please don't tell me). They function as means for Labour and Conservative voters to register a protest vote. The minute they pick a side, that goes away and they die.
Childbirth is hard enough without being treated like shit during and after it.
On the second question, no, I don't think it's a right wing plot to build no infrastructure - the lack of water infrastructure (new reservoirs etc.) stems from the zealous application of EU waterways directives and other environmental directives by the Environment Agency, which of course sadly we still adhere to. The purpose behind such measures is to promote 'water saving' rather than us just 'taking water for granted'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernivtsi
The initial batch will be 6-8 tanks; in total, the US intends to deliver 31. They are older vehicles being stripped of their most sensitive technology
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/07/28/u-s-aims-to-deliver-abrams-tanks-to-ukraine-in-september-politico/?swcfpc=1
Seemed to work fine. Pretty sure no-one ever escaped, or even tried to.
However, such is the scale of the problem, and the need to create a strategic, credible deterrent to illicit crossings, that I favour such measures nonetheless.
We cannot let ideology overcome pragmatism as I think the end outcome of that is very dark.
I believe him as much now as I did then.
Even Nigel Farage - the bête noire of the British Left - looks like a Teddy bears picnic compared to populists virtually anywhere else in the West.
We don't know how lucky we are.