It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'
Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.
Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.
The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?
Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.
If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base. I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.
Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.
The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
Sunak will not go to the country before he absolutely has to or if he thinks he’ll win. For me, January 2025 is very underpriced. It would be a terrible time to hold a GE and would probably make a Tory defeat worse, but if you are set to lose why not delay it for as long as possible? Sunak is not a great political strategist and has no discernible, May-like affection for the Conservative party, so why wouldn’t he hold on for as long as possible?
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC. So the scale of the defeat is mostly irrelevant to him. To the small degree that it does have any moment, the collapse can be attributed to Johnson leading a conga line while the grieving queen had to play Candy Crush Saga on her own and Truss Any% speedrunning the 20th century economic history of Argentina.
January '25 makes a lot of sense as Sunak has zero reason to go any sooner. We could have the election on Thursday 16th with DJT's inauguration on the following Monday for a proper lolfest.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Half of Labour's issue was the clean sweep the SNP have had in the 2015-19 elections.
Now that's gone Labour are likely to return to getting 25-30 seats in Scotland and that is reduces the number of English seats Labour needs to win to about 100 or so...
The most likely way that Labour ends in with most seats but not a majority is if Scotland continues to vote for the SNP but the current implosion makes that very unlikely...
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC.
He will resign his seat, but can he take up a seat in the lords from California?
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
Small correction: they're quoting the Prime Minister saying that other European countries are looking at a Rwanda style policy. That's not what's happening.
You might not be bothered about the PM being quite so misleading (was it one of those pooled statements where he doesn't really get questioned?), but I am.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
I think it's a bit harsh to assume refugees won't be rather more intelligent than UK based journalists.
A bigger problem in using it as a deterrent is so far it's been as effective as a temperance stand at the DfE, so any refugees will think they won't be affected.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
The politics of something that won't happen is not in the detail. As Rawnsley points out today migration/refugees is not the Tory's strong point factually in terms of the gap between reality, public promise and private Tory policy.
The the Trumpisation of politics means it remains an open question what the electoral effect of this is. This is the more true as Labour also don't have a coherent policy; they have the charming Yvette Cooper on the case for public consumption. This is an improvement on listening to Braverman but still isn't an actual policy.
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC.
He will resign his seat, but can he take up a seat in the lords from California?
Dan Hannan is largely US based these days, isn't he?
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'
Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.
Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.
The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?
Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.
If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base. I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.
Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.
The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
Sunak will not go to the country before he absolutely has to or if he thinks he’ll win. For me, January 2025 is very underpriced. It would be a terrible time to hold a GE and would probably make a Tory defeat worse, but if you are set to lose why not delay it for as long as possible? Sunak is not a great political strategist and has no discernible, May-like affection for the Conservative party, so why wouldn’t he hold on for as long as possible?
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC. So the scale of the defeat is mostly irrelevant to him. To the small degree that it does have any moment, the collapse can be attributed to Johnson leading a conga line while the grieving queen had to play Candy Crush Saga on her own and Truss Any% speedrunning the 20th century economic history of Argentina.
January '25 makes a lot of sense as Sunak has zero reason to go any sooner. We could have the election on Thursday 16th with DJT's inauguration on the following Monday for a proper lolfest.
Astonishing but true, this account is not actually impossible. Though slightly less champagne. Labour won't get in on exaggerated euphoria. An extra bottle of Lidl's non alcoholic beer might be the standby in hard times.
On topic - we likely have a year left and Starmer has own, probably two conferences to deliver. Plus he has just assembled what is likely to be his election cabinet. There’s time yet to move the needle. I’d also add that as the likelihood of a Starmer government increases, so will their funding. 20-odd seats is possible in Scotland as the SNP are mired in filth of their own creation. A further one hundred odd flips to Labour in England and (to a lesser extent) Wales is easily possible on the upside - plus the Tories are quite vulnerable in dozens of seats with Lib Dem challengers. I also think Sunak will come out of TV debates second best to Starmer.
My psephological prognosis is a Lab majority of about 30 seats, with a strong LD showing of around 40. There’s an upper limit of maybe 80 or 90 majority, but that would require something unpredictable* happening, I think.
On the low expectation end: I’ve bored on about how this election will be its own, and there’s no need to seek a parallel from the 90s - though I do wonder if a mirror of 2010 is possible, if Starmer fails to enthuse more broadly? I think that would be at the low end of expectations and would require some significant luck to come Sunak’s way (and unlike Spaffer, he is not a lucky general).
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I’ll bite, England were poor? On what planet are you watching from? Argentina are a decent side and played with a man advantage for over 65 minutes. Englands defence was superb. England clinically took points, and gave few penalties, something they have struggled with for years. No, the didn’t play free flowing, rugby, but they did the job.
Are they going to win the WC? Hell no, but they were not poor last night.
I find the next GE incredibly difficult to call. On the one hand: massive Labour swing implied by the polls. On the other: this is going to be the least UNS-y election I can remember.
We have the Red Wall seemingly leaning back to Labour, but not evenly. We have outer London staying Conservative. We have the affluent, educated South tilting to the LibDems. We have the SNP implosion in Scotland.
Or maybe we don't.
I suspect any betting value is going to be on niche but plausible outcomes ("Labour most seats in Scotland" or "LibDems over 50 seats" or something like that), rather than on the overall UK seat total.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
Whilst I think Labour will win a be largest party, I’m constantly reminded of the viewpoint of my grandparents yesterday; “yes, nothing works, but I can’t bring myself to ever vote Labour”
There’s probably quite a few people who think like that for whatever reason.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
A typical migrant from West Africa that arrives in Kent has passed through the following hoops:
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel. 2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration. 3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya. 4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med. 5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
You appear to think that changing the parties will change the policies.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
A typical migrant from West Africa that arrives in Kent has passed through the following hoops:
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel. 2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration. 3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya. 4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med. 5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
Well, I'm not so sure about that final sentence.
If they were to be met by Braverman in person and lectured for five minutes on British Values I reckon the numbers arriving would drop by 95% in 48 hours.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
A typical migrant from West Africa that arrives in Kent has passed through the following hoops:
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel. 2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration. 3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya. 4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med. 5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
How about having to spend a full week with each of them, consecutively?
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
Whilst I think Labour will win a be largest party, I’m constantly reminded of the viewpoint of my grandparents yesterday; “yes, nothing works, but I can’t bring myself to ever vote Labour”
There’s probably quite a few people who think like that for whatever reason.
If they don’t vote, or they vote LibDem, or Reform UK, or Monster Raving Loony, that’s still going to help Labour.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
That the rascals will be kicked out is almost a certainty. They are out if they lose roughly 53 seats. As there are 10 parties with at least one seat FPTP allows collective choices. One of them is to replace them with a centre left collective between two and seven parties.
There is a very good case both for and against this sort of outcome. On balance I think Labour needing to rely on LDs would be best.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I’ll bite, England were poor? On what planet are you watching from? Argentina are a decent side and played with a man advantage for over 65 minutes. Englands defence was superb. England clinically took points, and gave few penalties, something they have struggled with for years. No, the didn’t play free flowing, rugby, but they did the job.
Are they going to win the WC? Hell no, but they were not poor last night.
Biogotry, pure and simple, to suggest otherwise.
I only got to the telly 15 minutes in, and the volume was on low, and I didn't watch the half time analysis - so it was well into the second half before I noticed England were a man down. What struck me most was what a disciplined, competent performance it was for the time that I watched it. Defence was tight, few penalties given away. Granted there's a bit of an 'apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln' about this, but I can only comment on what I saw. And from what I understand, it wasn't the most egregious of red cards. Not a sparkling display of attacking rugby, but also a never-really-in-doubt win against a good opposition. Given the last 12 months of English rugby this is a big step forward. I'd say England look a lot bettet without Owen Farrell, which is something of a problem.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
That the rascals will be kicked out is almost a certainty. They are out if they lose roughly 53 seats. As there are 10 parties with at least one seat FPTP allows collective choices. One of them is to replace them with a centre left collective between two and seven parties.
There is a very good case both for and against this sort of outcome. On balance I think Labour needing to rely on LDs would be best.
I doubt the DUP would go in to coalition with Labour, they just dont see Labour as progressive
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
That the rascals will be kicked out is almost a certainty. They are out if they lose roughly 53 seats. As there are 10 parties with at least one seat FPTP allows collective choices. One of them is to replace them with a centre left collective between two and seven parties.
There is a very good case both for and against this sort of outcome. On balance I think Labour needing to rely on LDs would be best.
I doubt the DUP would go in to coalition with Labour, they just dont see Labour as progressive
Agree. The seven parties are: Lab, LD, Green, PC, SNP, SDLP and Alliance.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
Yesterday I had, for the first time for years, an electoral communication from the Labour Party. In my inbox. I pointed out that it was actually irrelevant, because it related to a neighbouring MP, and actually got a chatbot reply.
I didn't get even a reply from my local Labour party when I emailed them asking for information.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.
It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.
Why oh why didn’t the SNP elect the pin up of English Unionist Tories?
Memories are short so folk may well have forgotten how much use and ornament lots of Scots Labour MPs were 1979-1997. Of course after that a Labour government ‘gave’ us a killing-nationalism-stone-dead referendum on more self government, I doubt very much Starmer & co will be doing that.
I’m of the strategic opinion that rather than Kate Forbes the best aid to both the SNP and the cause of independence would be a dose of triangulating Starmerism and supine Sarwar at Holyrood (I still think the latter is extremely unlikely). If PB Righties think PM Starmer will be a vast disappointment, I’m not sure why that won’t apply north of Gretna.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
A typical migrant from West Africa that arrives in Kent has passed through the following hoops:
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel. 2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration. 3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya. 4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med. 5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.
It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.
Why oh why didn’t the SNP elect the pin up of English Unionist Tories?
Memories are short so folk may well have forgotten how much use and ornament lots of Scots Labour MPs were 1979-1997. Of course after that a Labour government ‘gave’ us a killing-nationalism-stone-dead referendum on more self government, I doubt very much Starmer & co will be doing that.
I’m of the strategic opinion that rather than Kate Forbes the best aid to both the SNP and the cause of independence would be a dose of triangulating Starmerism and supine Sarwar at Holyrood (I still think the latter is extremely unlikely). If PB Righties think PM Starmer will be a vast disappointment, I’m not sure why that won’t apply north of Gretna.
Despite the manifest problems of the SNP regime, the nationalist cause is a strong one.
SNP hold in Rutherglen is my value bet at the moment. I think it will be close.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.
Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda
Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.
That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.
Isn't he?
I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
This does raise an interesting point. If UK-based journalists don’t understand the government’s Rwanda policy, how can refugees? And if refugees don’t understand it, how can it be a deterrent?
Just woindering whether refugees - and, just as important, those who act as their travel agents - really don't understand basic arithmetic. But as we see on PB even well-informed folk don't, either. On the other hand, the refugees aren't desperate to find an excuse to vote Tory rather than Labour.
A typical migrant from West Africa that arrives in Kent has passed through the following hoops:
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel. 2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration. 3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya. 4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med. 5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
Many are happy to settle there, despite Banelieu and Le Pen. Anglophone migrants often want to link up with established communities here, from Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, etc.
And a PLUS for those who want more than three days without washing
This leaves me with so many very unpleasant questions that I never wanted to ask
The only thing it might answer is who washes their towel just once a year
Probably 72 hours provided you stay in bed the whole time, and lie really still
Not if your bed is anything like mine last night. I have never needed a cool shower more in my life than I did this morning.
Plus it must be painting a plastic coating onto your pores. Ugh.
I have taken to sleeping outside - seriously. I found it quite pleasant in the garden. As you say, it’s unbearable indoors.
I usually struggle a lot with the heat at night, but this week has actually not been too bad with it, and have slept just fine, it's been a real treat.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
I feel pretty confident quite a few governments have lost due to their own bungling more than the enthusiasm for the opposition, so it's hardly likely to be unprecedented either. I'm thinking turnout will still be decent, if not in some Tory held seats.
This government had a massive majority and seems to have done very little with it indeed, even before and after Covid.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.
It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.
Why oh why didn’t the SNP elect the pin up of English Unionist Tories?
Memories are short so folk may well have forgotten how much use and ornament lots of Scots Labour MPs were 1979-1997. Of course after that a Labour government ‘gave’ us a killing-nationalism-stone-dead referendum on more self government, I doubt very much Starmer & co will be doing that.
I’m of the strategic opinion that rather than Kate Forbes the best aid to both the SNP and the cause of independence would be a dose of triangulating Starmerism and supine Sarwar at Holyrood (I still think the latter is extremely unlikely). If PB Righties think PM Starmer will be a vast disappointment, I’m not sure why that won’t apply north of Gretna.
Despite the manifest problems of the SNP regime, the nationalist cause is a strong one.
SNP hold in Rutherglen is my value bet at the moment. I think it will be close.
The expectations management from the SNP has been very good, and the triumphalism of Labour could blow up in their face
I’m sceptical whether Uxbridge was really just an ULEZ thing. But not because Labour is underperforming polls everywhere. I think it points to some quite interesting differential swing.
Selby was a huge 23% swing. Uxbridge was a comparatively small 7%. Various rural constituencies have seen huge Lib Dem swings. But Bexley and Sidcup, admittedly before the real slump in Tory VI, was a comfortable hold. And that latest London Mayor poll was suggested them sneaking through to win on FPTP.
There were some surprising holds or even Tory wins in the last locals round, such as Leicester and other parts of the midlands. But huge losses in most of the red wall.
The pattern emerging is catastrophic loss of support in the North, the rural commuter South and the SW, but resilience in the metrolands and urban fringes of London and the Midlands. Places where there are 1930s semis, car dealerships and 2 cars in the drive.
I’m sceptical whether Uxbridge was really just an ULEZ thing. But not because Labour is underperforming polls everywhere. I think it points to some quite interesting differential swing.
Selby was a huge 23% swing. Uxbridge was a comparatively small 7%. Various rural constituencies have seen huge Lib Dem swings. But Bexley and Sidcup, admittedly before the real slump in Tory VI, was a comfortable hold. And that latest London Mayor poll was suggested them sneaking through to win on FPTP.
There were some surprising holds or even Tory wins in the last locals round, such as Leicester and other parts of the midlands. But huge losses in most of the red wall.
The pattern emerging is catastrophic loss of support in the North, the rural commuter South and the SW, but resilience in the metrolands and urban fringes of London and the Midlands. Places where there are 1930s semis, car dealerships and 2 cars in the drive.
Tamworth will be an intriguing test.
I could see that. I think they were always going to lose some seats in the Red Wall, but post Boris and the continuance of their polling sump it looks like they will lose practically all of them, reversing a long trend of growing support in the area. The South has been what Scotland was for Labour, a heartland to take for granted, and some losses seems inevitable, albeit not a collapse like SLAB suffered.
But the other areas you mention feel like ones which might well get lose during by-elections, but are recoverable in a GE situation.
Nonetheless I still think Labour will be able to get a relatively comfortable majority in the end, aided by a small to moderate Scottish recovery. Going from landslide to landslide is not easy, but still on the table at least.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
You appear to think that changing the parties will change the policies.
Oh, there's bound to be a few. Even in a political consensus not everything is the same, and implementation can be very different.
What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.
As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.
It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.
(*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)
You've already been called out, but I'll just add my own voice to the crowd. If Labour gained 30 seats from 2017 AND won what they won in 2017, they'd be on 292 seats. Assuming all those 30 came from the Conservatives (no guarantee), they'd be the largest party with the Conservatives on 288.
Of course, if some of those 'net 30' gains were also from the SNP (lets push the SNP down to 30 seats from the 35 they won in 2017) then Labour would be on 292 and the Conservatives on 293 (having lost only 25 seats).
So no. If Labour make a net 30 gain from 2017, not only would they not have a majority, its quite likely they wouldn't even be the largest party.
They might form a government, but it'd be a Lab-Lib-SNP alliance of convienence to get the Conservatives out.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.
It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.
Why oh why didn’t the SNP elect the pin up of English Unionist Tories?
Memories are short so folk may well have forgotten how much use and ornament lots of Scots Labour MPs were 1979-1997. Of course after that a Labour government ‘gave’ us a killing-nationalism-stone-dead referendum on more self government, I doubt very much Starmer & co will be doing that.
I’m of the strategic opinion that rather than Kate Forbes the best aid to both the SNP and the cause of independence would be a dose of triangulating Starmerism and supine Sarwar at Holyrood (I still think the latter is extremely unlikely). If PB Righties think PM Starmer will be a vast disappointment, I’m not sure why that won’t apply north of Gretna.
Despite the manifest problems of the SNP regime, the nationalist cause is a strong one.
SNP hold in Rutherglen is my value bet at the moment. I think it will be close.
I *hope* it’ll be close, but have no real insight. Do by elections tend to generate constituency polls? One in Rutherglen would be more interesting than most.
One prediction, if the legal difficulties of Sturgeon, Murrell etc develop not necessarily to their advantage, I’d expect an announcement imminently, if not the ‘not much to see here’ will slip out on a noisy news day at some point après 05/10/23.
I’m sceptical whether Uxbridge was really just an ULEZ thing. But not because Labour is underperforming polls everywhere. I think it points to some quite interesting differential swing.
Selby was a huge 23% swing. Uxbridge was a comparatively small 7%. Various rural constituencies have seen huge Lib Dem swings. But Bexley and Sidcup, admittedly before the real slump in Tory VI, was a comfortable hold. And that latest London Mayor poll was suggested them sneaking through to win on FPTP.
There were some surprising holds or even Tory wins in the last locals round, such as Leicester and other parts of the midlands. But huge losses in most of the red wall.
The pattern emerging is catastrophic loss of support in the North, the rural commuter South and the SW, but resilience in the metrolands and urban fringes of London and the Midlands. Places where there are 1930s semis, car dealerships and 2 cars in the drive.
Tamworth will be an intriguing test.
Yes. Unnoticed really have been the swings in the rural north. There is another blue wall that runs from Fylde to Holderness and points north. I think the Labour vote was close to maxxed in metros in 2017. You're trying to squeeze extra votes out of hardcore "never Labour" there now. The Tories still lead amongst those with "no financial worries".
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
Not in world cups. Winning is everything.
could qualification from the group come down to point difference?
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
Not in world cups. Winning is everything.
could qualification from the group come down to point difference?
It could. But it won't for England. They'll stroll to the semis unbeaten on a wave of "it's coming home" fervour. Head first into a 20+ point shellacking by the first very top side they encounter. It may do for the Argies. But they'll have to up their game.
Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%) should mean Tories out of power.
Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.
Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.
Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.
I agree on Starmers downside, but on his upside he has an organisational skill to transform his party from a chaotic cranky mess to a government in waiting in a little over 3 years.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
Starmer didnt so much get himself to government as the government just dicked about and asked him to shoot at an open goal. I detect no real enthusiasm for the man, it could well be everybody decides to stay at home since theres nothing worth getting excited about.
We're often told that the joy of FPTP is kicking the rascals out.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
You appear to think that changing the parties will change the policies.
Oh, there's bound to be a few. Even in a political consensus not everything is the same, and implementation can be very different.
In any case, the joy of FPTP isn't about the policies. (And nobody is being honest that we will be paying more and getting less after the next election. For obvious reasons.)
I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.
It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go. It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
I'm so concerned (A Labour win doesn't worry me, but neither would a Conservative win) that I feel a bit like Blair in early 1997. So unconvinced by the polls, he talked to Ashdown because he genuinely thought he might need the Lib Dems.
Labour almost certainly won't win the 123 seats they need to get their majority, and whilst I'm reasonably certain the Conservatives will lose at least 40 to lose their majority, I don't know where it will all end up.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
Not in world cups. Winning is everything.
could qualification from the group come down to point difference?
It could. But it won't for England. They'll stroll to the semis unbeaten on a wave of "it's coming home" fervour. Head first into a 20+ point shellacking by the first very top side they encounter. It may do for the Argies. But they'll have to up their game.
They'll bring Farrell back, and downhill from there.
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC.
He will resign his seat, but can he take up a seat in the lords from California?
Lord Ashcroft had to become a UK resident to be ennobled, although he changed that later.
So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...
George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
Not in world cups. Winning is everything.
could qualification from the group come down to point difference?
It could. But it won't for England. They'll stroll to the semis unbeaten on a wave of "it's coming home" fervour. Head first into a 20+ point shellacking by the first very top side they encounter. It may do for the Argies. But they'll have to up their game.
Argentina were quite poor. I was surprised. I expected better from them.
You are absolutely right. England will need to up their game.
However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.
This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. One of the most egregious examples is the purchase of a derelict Royal Mail sorting office to house England’s largest free school, Northampton International Academy. Its lengthy refurbishment cost over £40m because it was beset with so many problems. A report in 2017 concluded that there had been “insufficient survey work” before building started.
Despite the refurbishment, the school was last week named as one of the 147 schools and education settings with confirmed reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac). It was forced to close the top floor of its main building, including 18 classrooms, in what it stressed was a “precautionary” measure...
It is time for a change and that will happen. Labour will inevitably get a working majority maybe only 10 or 20, more likely 50, but working it will be. Comparing with the nineties can be misleading We have to look at the size of the majorities overcome, this time we are consistently looking at 20 -30,000 that are going just like that.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
“I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
Why is that relevant? Is your fond hope that if other countries do it then perhaps the issue will be detoxified for the tories?
Money given to Rwanda so far: 140m Money given to France so far: 63m Refugees packed off to Kigali with a boot up their arse: 0 Boat arrivals this year: 21,000
Those numbers matter more than whether Italian Fash Karen wants to try the policy on for size.
The pejorative "Karen" is in fact RACIST towards the KAREN people of Burma!
It should be remembered that regardless of the grave injustice done to Harvey Proctor that he’s still a twat.
I noticed that also. I also noticed some were waving both the EU flag and Union Jack. Shame we can't have that. I notice how outside many EU countries prominent buildings both the national flag and the EU flag flutter proudly.
It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'
Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.
Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.
The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?
Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.
If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base. I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.
Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.
The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
Sunak will not go to the country before he absolutely has to or if he thinks he’ll win. For me, January 2025 is very underpriced. It would be a terrible time to hold a GE and would probably make a Tory defeat worse, but if you are set to lose why not delay it for as long as possible? Sunak is not a great political strategist and has no discernible, May-like affection for the Conservative party, so why wouldn’t he hold on for as long as possible?
It would be so ironic (but typical) if the government that repealed the FTPA ended up running for the full 5 years.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD is under diagnosed. And there's a national shortage of one of the meds, too. We have students who it's taken over a year to get a diagnosis, and a prescription, only to be told there isn't any available. Having read the Observer report in detail, I'm even more spectacularly depressed. Both about this government (is there any issue at all that they don't think is ideal for a management consultancy and accountants)? And about my job. The DfE simply no longer has anything approaching an education strategy other than frantically flail about for ways to make everything cheaper.
Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-
The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.
Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.
The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.
Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.
Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.
"I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.
"You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."
Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".
The Sunak government announced today that it had found an island to emplace the migrant surge currently affecting Europe. Called "Britain", it has a reasonable albeit creaking infrastructure that Sunak has convinced himself can accommodate 500-1000K migrants per year for the foreseeable future. The scheme conducted with cooperation with the French will allow Europe to cope with the numbers of migrants without disruption, or at least of the places they like. As the locals are not keen on this the scheme has caused a degree of unrest, but the Sunak administration staff either have or want second homes in other countries and do not care overmuch. To deflect criticism they have created "the Rwanda scheme" as a disinformation campaign to make it appear that they are doing otherwise. The scheme will take up around 2% of the total but will distract the locals long enough to remove effective opposition.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
In order to address the issues around both authorised and unauthorised migration we do need to understand the motivations of migrants.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
Sell the campervan...
Hard to sell impounded evidence of a criminal investigation though
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD and so on are only part of it. And as Dixie says, doctors might want to know. Seeing as they are the ones doing the diagnoses.
A fair chunk of children will also be with conditions such as trisomy 21, and so on, about which there is no argument at all.
So if this consultancy can cure those as well ... but then HMG is famous for paying contractors to get on with calling people in with similar conditions and asking them if they haven't perhaps been cured in the last year so they can save on disability allowances. I wonder how the interviews and assessments will be conducted?
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
Quite right (unless, of course, DavidL is a Gael by family). Often used to mean from south of the border but that's etymologically quite wrong - and as the word is now so ambiguous it's not very useful.
It's hard to read the little shit but my gut feeling is that Sunak will be out of politics before the cleaners have tackled the mountain of empty champagne bottles at the BBC.
He will resign his seat, but can he take up a seat in the lords from California?
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
I'm guessing it comes from the same root as Saxon, cognate with the Welsh Saeswn.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
I'm guessing it comes from the same root as Saxon, cognate with the Welsh Saeswn.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
I get everything I need to know from the early seasons of Outlander.
I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.
It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go. It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
I'm so concerned (A Labour win doesn't worry me, but neither would a Conservative win) that I feel a bit like Blair in early 1997. So unconvinced by the polls, he talked to Ashdown because he genuinely thought he might need the Lib Dems.
Labour almost certainly won't win the 123 seats they need to get their majority, and whilst I'm reasonably certain the Conservatives will lose at least 40 to lose their majority, I don't know where it will all end up.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
In order to address the issues around both authorised and unauthorised migration we do need to understand the motivations of migrants.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
A number of African countries, for example, have now been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to give them before you start asking how many of the problems are down to their own actions?
We won't solve the underlying problem - which is many of these countries are badly run, corrupt, mismanaged etc and that drives emigration - because the moment anyone suggests those as the underlying reasons, the call goes out that they are colonialist and racist. Far easier just to ignore the underlying issues and not put your head above the parapet.
If you want how to solve the issue - and help the people - you would argue the best solution is for the West to step in and take over the governance side.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
Probably the best analysis on the subject on PB.com by far.
I would also add that, because of the housing rules (based on need rather than how long you have been on a list), the UK is also welcoming when it comes to getting social housing relatively quickly if you can persuade the authorities you have a large family.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
In order to address the issues around both authorised and unauthorised migration we do need to understand the motivations of migrants.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
A number of African countries, for example, have now been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to give them before you start asking how many of the problems are down to their own actions?
We won't solve the underlying problem - which is many of these countries are badly run, corrupt, mismanaged etc and that drives emigration - because the moment anyone suggests those as the underlying reasons, the call goes out that they are colonialist and racist. Far easier just to ignore the underlying issues and not put your head above the parapet.
If you want how to solve the issue - and help the people - you would argue the best solution is for the West to step in and take over the governance side.
I can't say the final para is an appealing solution, but despite enduring legacies I do think it's the case that occasional attempts to place all the problems on that legacy is misplaced, especially when there are success stories. It's a bit infantilising and patronising too, rendering diverse cultures and peoples and hundreds of millions as nothing more than reactive to the crimes of Westerners in the last 2 centuries.
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
In order to address the issues around both authorised and unauthorised migration we do need to understand the motivations of migrants.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
A number of African countries, for example, have now been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to give them before you start asking how many of the problems are down to their own actions?
We won't solve the underlying problem - which is many of these countries are badly run, corrupt, mismanaged etc and that drives emigration - because the moment anyone suggests those as the underlying reasons, the call goes out that they are colonialist and racist. Far easier just to ignore the underlying issues and not put your head above the parapet.
If you want how to solve the issue - and help the people - you would argue the best solution is for the West to step in and take over the governance side.
I can't say the final para is an appealing solution, but despite enduring legacies I do think it's the case that occasional attempts to place all the problems on that legacy is misplaced, especially when there are success stories. It's a bit infantilising and patronising too, rendering diverse cultures and peoples and hundreds of millions as nothing more than reactive to the crimes of Westerners in the last 2 centuries.
It is worth remembering who benefits from "it is all the colonialists' fault" line. Primarily it is the corrupt elites who run these countries and milk the wealth - they have a bete noire to message to their own populations and they deflect international criticism by playing the colonial card. And then they are helped by those in the West who are keen to see everything as the fault of the West.
Top tip for the last group - by helping these rulers' messaging, you are making the poor people in those countries suffer.
Re the international governance part, I do not see any other long-term solution. If emigration continues to grow exponentially, at some point the electorates in Europe will demand some more 'forceful' action.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD is under diagnosed. And there's a national shortage of one of the meds, too. We have students who it's taken over a year to get a diagnosis, and a prescription, only to be told there isn't any available. Having read the Observer report in detail, I'm even more spectacularly depressed. Both about this government (is there any issue at all that they don't think is ideal for a management consultancy and accountants)? And about my job. The DfE simply no longer has anything approaching an education strategy other than frantically flail about for ways to make everything cheaper.
Boots pharmacy stock checker broke the deadlock for me from a couple of weeks of issues sourcing the right prescription meds to clear a daughter's ear infection recently. I'm not sure if it would help for more controlled meds, but might be worth a look?
I am in a constant state of wonderment that after (1), (2), (3), and (4), France is such a repellent and dangerous country that they still risk (5).
It's nothing to do with France being repellent. The UK has non-contributory benefits, no compulsory address registration, a vast black economy, the English language, extant communities of people from the countries that generate refugees and a completely collapsed immigration regime making the chance of apprehension and deportation remote at best.
So wonder no longer.
In order to address the issues around both authorised and unauthorised migration we do need to understand the motivations of migrants.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
A number of African countries, for example, have now been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to give them before you start asking how many of the problems are down to their own actions?
We won't solve the underlying problem - which is many of these countries are badly run, corrupt, mismanaged etc and that drives emigration - because the moment anyone suggests those as the underlying reasons, the call goes out that they are colonialist and racist. Far easier just to ignore the underlying issues and not put your head above the parapet.
If you want how to solve the issue - and help the people - you would argue the best solution is for the West to step in and take over the governance side.
You clearly did not notice that I didn't blame colonialism, and the problem is much the same in countries that were never colonised, such as Ethiopia, Afghanistan or those in Latin America with 200 years of independence.
Indeed the problems of internal and external migration were a European problem in the 19th century. It is basically a problem of stage of economic development, but developing countries are increasingly stuck in a development trap of premature deindustrialisation.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD is under diagnosed. And there's a national shortage of one of the meds, too. We have students who it's taken over a year to get a diagnosis, and a prescription, only to be told there isn't any available. Having read the Observer report in detail, I'm even more spectacularly depressed. Both about this government (is there any issue at all that they don't think is ideal for a management consultancy and accountants)? And about my job. The DfE simply no longer has anything approaching an education strategy other than frantically flail about for ways to make everything cheaper.
The current government isn't set up to look after the people. It wants to reward capitalism for, well, capitalism. It's forgotten that it needs to look after the population as a whole, not just the ones who vote for it or fund it. Tories always moan that we can't tax the wrong people or companies too much, or stop them dumping shit in rivers, or rinsing us with our energy bills because that will upset them and they'll leave, so we must treat them with kid gloves so they'll be nice to us. How's that working out for most of us? We have to suffer all this shite so that the Tory backers and voters are happy, I don't think Starmer is the answer, but just getting the current Tory party out will be a start.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
Not then, equivalent to the Cymric ‘Saesneg’ meaning ‘Saxon’? Or are Lowlanders Saxons as opposed to Highlander Gaels? Genuine question.
Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
Technically yes as the word means "A Lowland Scot" and David is not a Highlander. As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
Not then, equivalent to the Cymric ‘Saesneg’ meaning ‘Saxon’? Or are Lowlanders Saxons as opposed to Highlander Gaels? Genuine question.
Oh yes, Lowlanders are. I'm (primarily) a Lowlander - mix of Doric, Borderer and Lothian: all, at least in recent millennia, Germanic-speaking areas. Hence 'Saxon'.
You know my mind on this so I'll make it quick. We are too keen to pathologise normal human variation. We cannot afford and should not seek a state where everybody has a disorder and everybody is treated to force them into to a nonexistent nominal state.
I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.
It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go. It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
You can't ignore it, it happened, it's there, it's base camp, but neither would I discount Heathener's point. It was a peculiar election. Course they all are to an extent, but 2019 more than most.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD and so on are only part of it. And as Dixie says, doctors might want to know. Seeing as they are the ones doing the diagnoses.
A fair chunk of children will also be with conditions such as trisomy 21, and so on, about which there is no argument at all.
So if this consultancy can cure those as well ... but then HMG is famous for paying contractors to get on with calling people in with similar conditions and asking them if they haven't perhaps been cured in the last year so they can save on disability allowances. I wonder how the interviews and assessments will be conducted?
Not sure that work capability is a good comparator for what seems to be planned. There doesn't appear (yet) to be any intention of removing EHCP's from those who have them. It is all about stopping new children getting them. From what I can gleam this involves liaising with senior Council officials and members of school's Senior Leadership teams. In other words. It's a management and finance issue. The solution mooted appears to be twofold. 1. Early intervention. Where? By whom? It's a good thing undoubtedly. But it won't stop a child with ADHD continuing to have it. 2. More children kept in mainstream education. Not because research has shown it to be beneficial. But because special schools are full, and there are waiting lists and nowhere else for anyone to go. This is the very opposite of everything which has happened since 2011. Again. Where? By whom? Are academies and free schools to be forced to take these kids on their rolls? Because. A great many of these have been weeding kids out to boost their GCSE scores, by suspending them for inattentiveness, fidgeting in class, not lining up properly, not wearing the correct uniform, lack of respect (not making eye contact), disorganisation, etc. Basically, for displaying the symptoms of ASD or ADHD.
No mention whatsoever of the elephant in the room however. Specialist TA support is paid at minimum wage. You need an enhanced DBS. You don't have to be literate or numerate. Increasingly, you don't even have to have a good command of the English language. They will be needed if these kids are to continue to be in mainstream. And there'll need to be a sea change in attitude from Academy chains as to what their purpose is.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
A management consultancy based in Abingdon can reduce the incidence of ASD, ADHD and other conditions by a fifth. Huge if true. Has someone told the BMA?
I think they are already fully paid up members of the BSA.
The implication - that vulnerable kids are going to be put through something akin to Fitness to Work tests to retain school help - denial of medical need based on a blind and clinically dubious target driven cost cutting culture - is pretty horrible.
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
ADHD and so on are only part of it. And as Dixie says, doctors might want to know. Seeing as they are the ones doing the diagnoses.
A fair chunk of children will also be with conditions such as trisomy 21, and so on, about which there is no argument at all.
So if this consultancy can cure those as well ... but then HMG is famous for paying contractors to get on with calling people in with similar conditions and asking them if they haven't perhaps been cured in the last year so they can save on disability allowances. I wonder how the interviews and assessments will be conducted?
Not sure that work capability is a good comparator for what seems to be planned. There doesn't appear (yet) to be any intention of removing EHCP's from those who have them. It is all about stopping new children getting them. From what I can gleam this involves liaising with senior Council officials and members of school's Senior Leadership teams. In other words. It's a management and finance issue. The solution mooted appears to be twofold. 1. Early intervention. Where? By whom? It's a good thing undoubtedly. But it won't stop a child with ADHD continuing to have it. 2. More children kept in mainstream education. This is the very opposite of everything which has happened since 2010. Again. Where? By whom? Are academies and free schools to be forced to take these
You know my mind on this so I'll make it quick. We are too keen to pathologise normal human variation. We cannot afford and should not seek a state where everybody has a disorder and everybody is treated to force them into to a nonexistent nominal state.
Even if simple medication can help a child achieve vastly improved results, and be happy and settled, so that their parents aren't stressed, and can maybe work? A bit harsh your philosophy.
Start again due to block quote. Yes. @viewcode is right. It would be just lovely if we could accept the child who won't sit still. Or concentrate. Or not make inappropriate noises. Or remember their pencil case. And what class they have next. Wonderful! But we'd need a 180° turn in education policy of 13 years.
I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.
It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go. It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
You can't ignore it, it happened, it's there, it's base camp, but neither would I discount Heathener's point. It was a peculiar election. Course they all are to an extent, but 2019 more than most.
I don't Starmer is getting enough credit, for turning Labour around, 3 years ago, no one would have thought that Labour would win an overall majority, whilst I still think it will be a difficult ask for labour to do so, a remarkable turnaround none the less. In my opinion it is not all down to the Tories imploding, Starmer was the right man at the time, Long Bailey would have been a disaster
Start again due to block quote. Yes. @viewcode is right. It would be just lovely if we could accept the child who won't sit still. Or concentrate. Or not make inappropriate noises. Or remember their pencil case. And what class they have next. Wonderful! But we'd need a 180° turn in education policy of 13 years.
I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.
It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go. It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
You can't ignore it, it happened, it's there, it's base camp, but neither would I discount Heathener's point. It was a peculiar election. Course they all are to an extent, but 2019 more than most.
I don't Starmer is getting enough credit, for turning Labour around, 3 years ago, no one would have thought that Labour would win an overall majority, whilst I still think it will be a difficult ask for labour to do so, a remarkable turnaround none the less. In my opinion it is not all down to the Tories imploding, Starmer was the right man at the time, Long Bailey would have been a disaster
He won the leadership on a lie Has taken Lab to be a 2nd Tory austerity party and still will end up with fewer Lab votes than in 2017.
Meanwhile the Tories have totally imploded and Starmer thinks a Tory solution will solve all ills.
Start again due to block quote. Yes. @viewcode is right. It would be just lovely if we could accept the child who won't sit still. Or concentrate. Or not make inappropriate noises. Or remember their pencil case. And what class they have next. Wonderful! But we'd need a 180° turn in education policy of 13 years.
Double PE every morning would fix it.
You've put a smiley face there. But you're bang on. 20 minutes English, 20 minutes maths. Out on the yard.
Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.
(I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)
'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.
Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.
However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.
This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '
PS And yes, some have RAAC.
One reason why BSF was scrapped was so Gove could devote money to his free school and academies programme.
As with many of Gove's initiatives, it was the right decision to scrap BSF and yet the utterly wrong decision in what to do next.
Gove: Asked on the The Andrew Marr Show this morning about his worst mistake, he replied: “I don’t know, there were so many.”
However, Mr Gove later identified the controversial axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme as one example. “One I did fess up to, which happened relatively early on when I was education secretary, was cancelling Building Schools for the Future,” he said. “And there it was not so much that it was wrong to try and save public money, it was done in a crass and insensitive way, and it taught me a lesson.” https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/michael-gove-admits-many-mistakes-government
Start again due to block quote. Yes. @viewcode is right. It would be just lovely if we could accept the child who won't sit still. Or concentrate. Or not make inappropriate noises. Or remember their pencil case. And what class they have next. Wonderful! But we'd need a 180° turn in education policy of 13 years.
Double PE every morning would fix it.
You've put a smiley face there. But you're bang on. 20 minutes English, 20 minutes maths. Out on the yard.
What yard? Apparently not needed any more, any old shop will do.
And doing PT, jumping up and down in unison, in some old building ...
Comments
January '25 makes a lot of sense as Sunak has zero reason to go any sooner. We could have the election on Thursday 16th with DJT's inauguration on the following Monday for a proper lolfest.
Half of Labour's issue was the clean sweep the SNP have had in the 2015-19 elections.
Now that's gone Labour are likely to return to getting 25-30 seats in Scotland and that is reduces the number of English seats Labour needs to win to about 100 or so...
The most likely way that Labour ends in with most seats but not a majority is if Scotland continues to vote for the SNP but the current implosion makes that very unlikely...
You might not be bothered about the PM being quite so misleading (was it one of those pooled statements where he doesn't really get questioned?), but I am.
A bigger problem in using it as a deterrent is so far it's been as effective as a temperance stand at the DfE, so any refugees will think they won't be affected.
The the Trumpisation of politics means it remains an open question what the electoral effect of this is. This is the more true as Labour also don't have a coherent policy; they have the charming Yvette Cooper on the case for public consumption. This is an improvement on listening to Braverman but still isn't an actual policy.
Also worth noting that there are no LD seats in his target 250, and only two Lab seats in the LD top 30 targets. Both parties will be firing at the same target, at least South of the border.
My psephological prognosis is a Lab majority of about 30 seats, with a strong LD showing of around 40. There’s an upper limit of maybe 80 or 90 majority, but that would require something unpredictable* happening, I think.
On the low expectation end: I’ve bored on about how this election will be its own, and there’s no need to seek a parallel from the 90s - though I do wonder if a mirror of 2010 is possible, if Starmer fails to enthuse more broadly? I think that would be at the low end of expectations and would require some significant luck to come Sunak’s way (and unlike Spaffer, he is not a lucky general).
*yes, I’m predicting the unpredictable.
No, the didn’t play free flowing, rugby, but they did the job.
Are they going to win the WC? Hell no, but they were not poor last night.
Biogotry, pure and simple, to suggest otherwise.
We have the Red Wall seemingly leaning back to Labour, but not evenly. We have outer London staying Conservative. We have the affluent, educated South tilting to the LibDems. We have the SNP implosion in Scotland.
Or maybe we don't.
I suspect any betting value is going to be on niche but plausible outcomes ("Labour most seats in Scotland" or "LibDems over 50 seats" or something like that), rather than on the overall UK seat total.
There’s probably quite a few people who think like that for whatever reason.
If that's not the case now, when is it?
1) gaining the financial wherewithal to travel.
2) crossing the Sahara desert 20+ packed in a pick-up truck, dodging Islamists, robbers, The Wagner Group, predatory governments and death by dehydration.
3) Risk of robbery and enslavement in the failed state of Libya.
4) the expensive and hazardous crossing of the Med.
5) the crossing of the Channel.
They are not going to be put off by any level of beastliness that even Lee-anderthal or Braverman can come up with, short of being gassed on arrival.
If they were to be met by Braverman in person and lectured for five minutes on British Values I reckon the numbers arriving would drop by 95% in 48 hours.
'The government has quietly signed a contract targeting 20% cuts to the number of new education plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) to bring down costs, the Observer can reveal.
Then junior education minister Claire Coutinho – recently promoted to the cabinet as energy secretary– subsequently told MPs that no targets were in place.'
Oh dear. But who cares when we have Mr Sunak saying hooray Rwanda because some other government is interested in doing something different there?
There is a very good case both for and against this sort of outcome. On balance I think Labour needing to rely on LDs would be best.
Not a sparkling display of attacking rugby, but also a never-really-in-doubt win against a good opposition. Given the last 12 months of English rugby this is a big step forward.
I'd say England look a lot bettet without Owen Farrell, which is something of a problem.
Huge if true.
Has someone told the BMA?
Good morning, everyone.
Memories are short so folk may well have forgotten how much use and ornament lots of Scots Labour MPs were 1979-1997. Of course after that a Labour government ‘gave’ us a killing-nationalism-stone-dead referendum on more self government, I doubt very much Starmer & co will be doing that.
I’m of the strategic opinion that rather than Kate Forbes the best aid to both the SNP and the cause of independence would be a dose of triangulating Starmerism and supine Sarwar at Holyrood (I still think the latter is extremely unlikely). If PB Righties think PM Starmer will be a vast disappointment, I’m not sure why that won’t apply north of Gretna.
SNP hold in Rutherglen is my value bet at the moment. I think it will be close.
This government had a massive majority and seems to have done very little with it indeed, even before and after Covid.
Selby was a huge 23% swing. Uxbridge was a comparatively small 7%. Various rural constituencies have seen huge Lib Dem swings. But Bexley and Sidcup, admittedly before the real slump in Tory VI, was a comfortable hold. And that latest London Mayor poll was suggested them sneaking through to win on FPTP.
There were some surprising holds or even Tory wins in the last locals round, such as Leicester and other parts of the midlands. But huge losses in most of the red wall.
The pattern emerging is catastrophic loss of support in the North, the rural commuter South and the SW, but resilience in the metrolands and urban fringes of London and the Midlands. Places where there are 1930s semis, car dealerships and 2 cars in the drive.
Tamworth will be an intriguing test.
But the other areas you mention feel like ones which might well get lose during by-elections, but are recoverable in a GE situation.
Nonetheless I still think Labour will be able to get a relatively comfortable majority in the end, aided by a small to moderate Scottish recovery. Going from landslide to landslide is not easy, but still on the table at least.
If Labour gained 30 seats from 2017 AND won what they won in 2017, they'd be on 292 seats. Assuming all those 30 came from the Conservatives (no guarantee), they'd be the largest party with the Conservatives on 288.
Of course, if some of those 'net 30' gains were also from the SNP (lets push the SNP down to 30 seats from the 35 they won in 2017) then Labour would be on 292 and the Conservatives on 293 (having lost only 25 seats).
So no. If Labour make a net 30 gain from 2017, not only would they not have a majority, its quite likely they wouldn't even be the largest party.
They might form a government, but it'd be a Lab-Lib-SNP alliance of convienence to get the Conservatives out.
One prediction, if the legal difficulties of Sturgeon, Murrell etc develop not necessarily to their advantage, I’d expect an announcement imminently, if not the ‘not much to see here’ will slip out on a noisy news day at some point après 05/10/23.
Unnoticed really have been the swings in the rural north. There is another blue wall that runs from Fylde to Holderness and points north.
I think the Labour vote was close to maxxed in metros in 2017. You're trying to squeeze extra votes out of hardcore "never Labour" there now.
The Tories still lead amongst those with "no financial worries".
So wonder no longer.
Head first into a 20+ point shellacking by the first very top side they encounter.
It may do for the Argies. But they'll have to up their game.
It's about the rascals.
Labour almost certainly won't win the 123 seats they need to get their majority, and whilst I'm reasonably certain the Conservatives will lose at least 40 to lose their majority, I don't know where it will all end up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft#Honours
You are absolutely right. England will need to up their game.
UK government did not carry out detailed surveys before it bought free schools sites
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites
..Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.
However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.
This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. One of the most egregious examples is the purchase of a derelict Royal Mail sorting office to house England’s largest free school, Northampton International Academy. Its lengthy refurbishment cost over £40m because it was beset with so many problems. A report in 2017 concluded that there had been “insufficient survey work” before building started.
Despite the refurbishment, the school was last week named as one of the 147 schools and education settings with confirmed reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac). It was forced to close the top floor of its main building, including 18 classrooms, in what it stressed was a “precautionary” measure...
Comparing with the nineties can be misleading
We have to look at the size of the majorities overcome, this time we are consistently looking at 20 -30,000 that are going just like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people
Even if you think, culturally, that ADHD is overdiagnosed (and we're nowhere near the same start point as the USA in this respect), this iis the culture war equivalent of carpet bombing civilians.
Jenny X's suicide an issue at the next GE?
And there's a national shortage of one of the meds, too.
We have students who it's taken over a year to get a diagnosis, and a prescription, only to be told there isn't any available.
Having read the Observer report in detail, I'm even more spectacularly depressed.
Both about this government (is there any issue at all that they don't think is ideal for a management consultancy and accountants)?
And about my job.
The DfE simply no longer has anything approaching an education strategy other than frantically flail about for ways to make everything cheaper.
The Sunak government announced today that it had found an island to emplace the migrant surge currently affecting Europe. Called "Britain", it has a reasonable albeit creaking infrastructure that Sunak has convinced himself can accommodate 500-1000K migrants per year for the foreseeable future. The scheme conducted with cooperation with the French will allow Europe to cope with the numbers of migrants without disruption, or at least of the places they like. As the locals are not keen on this the scheme has caused a degree of unrest, but the Sunak administration staff either have or want second homes in other countries and do not care overmuch. To deflect criticism they have created "the Rwanda scheme" as a disinformation campaign to make it appear that they are doing otherwise. The scheme will take up around 2% of the total but will distract the locals long enough to remove effective opposition.
As ever knowledge of Scotland on here is close to ZERO.
This is a global issue driven by migration from rural areas to the teeming slums and informal economies of these areas, particularly to low level non manufacturing jobs. The world's poor increasingly live like that.
In turn that poverty and underemployment leads to conflict with authorities, over religious political, criminal or economic issues, and often a harsh response from those authorities. That then drives migration, initially within region then further afield, particularly of young men.
Is a hand to mouth underground existence dodging authorities harder in Khartoum or in London, and which is less risky?
It isn't defeatist to look at the roots of the problem, it is the essential precursor to a functioning answer.
A fair chunk of children will also be with conditions such as trisomy 21, and so on, about which there is no argument at all.
So if this consultancy can cure those as well ... but then HMG is famous for paying contractors to get on with calling people in with similar conditions and asking them if they haven't perhaps been cured in the last year so they can save on disability allowances. I wonder how the interviews and assessments will be conducted?
https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/sassenach
We won't solve the underlying problem - which is many of these countries are badly run, corrupt, mismanaged etc and that drives emigration - because the moment anyone suggests those as the underlying reasons, the call goes out that they are colonialist and racist. Far easier just to ignore the underlying issues and not put your head above the parapet.
If you want how to solve the issue - and help the people - you would argue the best solution is for the West to step in and take over the governance side.
I would also add that, because of the housing rules (based on need rather than how long you have been on a list), the UK is also welcoming when it comes to getting social housing relatively quickly if you can persuade the authorities you have a large family.
Top tip for the last group - by helping these rulers' messaging, you are making the poor people in those countries suffer.
Re the international governance part, I do not see any other long-term solution. If emigration continues to grow exponentially, at some point the electorates in Europe will demand some more 'forceful' action.
Indeed the problems of internal and external migration were a European problem in the 19th century. It is basically a problem of stage of economic development, but developing countries are increasingly stuck in a development trap of premature deindustrialisation.
Tories always moan that we can't tax the wrong people or companies too much, or stop them dumping shit in rivers, or rinsing us with our energy bills because that will upset them and they'll leave, so we must treat them with kid gloves so they'll be nice to us. How's that working out for most of us? We have to suffer all this shite so that the Tory backers and voters are happy, I don't think Starmer is the answer, but just getting the current Tory party out will be a start.
Genuine question.
The road you can see below is Henry Drive in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex.
It's a typical seaside town, not far from Southend.
Except since 8 June 2023, seventy new companies have been registered to seventeen different addresses in this road.
https://twitter.com/greybrow53/status/1700426422941106265
It is all about stopping new children getting them.
From what I can gleam this involves liaising with senior Council officials and members of school's Senior Leadership teams.
In other words. It's a management and finance issue.
The solution mooted appears to be twofold.
1. Early intervention. Where? By whom? It's a good thing undoubtedly. But it won't stop a child with ADHD continuing to have it.
2. More children kept in mainstream education.
Not because research has shown it to be beneficial. But because special schools are full, and there are waiting lists and nowhere else for anyone to go.
This is the very opposite of everything which has happened since 2011. Again. Where? By whom?
Are academies and free schools to be forced to take these kids on their rolls?
Because. A great many of these have been weeding kids out to boost their GCSE scores, by suspending them for inattentiveness, fidgeting in class, not lining up properly, not wearing the correct uniform, lack of respect (not making eye contact), disorganisation, etc.
Basically, for displaying the
symptoms of ASD or ADHD.
No mention whatsoever of the elephant in the room however. Specialist TA support is paid at minimum wage. You need an enhanced DBS. You don't have to be literate or numerate. Increasingly, you don't even have to have a good command of the English language.
They will be needed if these kids are to continue to be in mainstream. And there'll need to be a sea change in attitude from Academy chains as to what their purpose is.
It is all about stopping new children getting them.
From what I can gleam this involves liaising with senior Council officials and members of school's Senior Leadership teams.
In other words. It's a management and finance issue.
The solution mooted appears to be twofold.
1. Early intervention. Where? By whom? It's a good thing undoubtedly. But it won't stop a child with ADHD continuing to have it.
2. More children kept in mainstream education.
This is the very opposite of everything which has happened since 2010.
Again. Where? By whom?
Are academies and free schools to be forced to take these Even if simple medication can help a child achieve vastly improved results, and be happy and settled, so that their parents aren't stressed, and can maybe work?
A bit harsh your philosophy.
Yes. @viewcode is right. It would be just lovely if we could accept the child who won't sit still. Or concentrate. Or not make inappropriate noises. Or remember their pencil case.
And what class they have next.
Wonderful!
But we'd need a 180° turn in education policy of 13 years.
Meanwhile the Tories have totally imploded and Starmer thinks a Tory solution will solve all ills.
But you're bang on.
20 minutes English, 20 minutes maths. Out on the yard.
Asked on the The Andrew Marr Show this morning about his worst mistake, he replied: “I don’t know, there were so many.”
However, Mr Gove later identified the controversial axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme as one example. “One I did fess up to, which happened relatively early on when I was education secretary, was cancelling Building Schools for the Future,” he said. “And there it was not so much that it was wrong to try and save public money, it was done in a crass and insensitive way, and it taught me a lesson.”
https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/michael-gove-admits-many-mistakes-government
And doing PT, jumping up and down in unison, in some old building ...