This will be shown on journalism training courses for years to come on what happens when someone with no discernible news anchor ability is asked to deal with a breaking story
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.
You sound like the cruel sod who was our PE teacher, and imagined he could cure asthma by insisting on cross-country. I’d get to the halfway stage dying for a rest and be told ‘come on, we’ve been waiting for you’. And everyone who’d been resting would start off again.
Excellent thread header, thanks @TheScreamingEagles. I do have sympathy for the view of @Heathener that the last election is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. That said, I also think 2017 is an anomaly too.
I think Labour will probably get over the line and they may even smash it out of the park. The one concern I have is the manifesto. I know there's the view that election campaigns don't change very much, but I feel that the support for Labour is built largely on people being fed up with the Tories.
Labour pledged to stick to Tory spending plans for the first two years after 1997. I think people had a good idea of what they'd get from Labour (more of the same but with a bit more money for schools and hospitals and less sleaze). I don't think we're in the same position now.
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).
It’s full of the French.
Seriously, the level of “you are not welcome here” that the French apply is quite real.
This will be shown on journalism training courses for years to come on what happens when someone with no discernible news anchor ability is asked to deal with a breaking story
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.
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.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
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 helps to have Western countries take in an interest in you, but for reasons other than having lots of natural resources. The British governments in the 1950's and 1960's did a lot to make Malaysia and Singapore success stories, putting down the Communist insurgents, and defending Sarawak from Indonesian attacks. US support for Taiwan and South Korea is a big element in their success. These were all places whose GDP per head in 1950, was similar to that of a typical African country at the time. Somewhere along the line, these countries obtained leaders who were autocratic, like their African counterparts, but competent, unlike them.
Compare too, the effort that went into making West Germany and Japan success stories.
Africa is seen mainly as a source of natural resources, both by its elites, and by Western governments, the Chinese, and Russia. Few people with influence have any vested interest in good governance.
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.
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 helps to have Western countries take in an interest in you, but for reasons other than having lots of natural resources. The British governments in the 1950
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.
You sound like the cruel sod who was our PE teacher, and imagined he could cure asthma by insisting on cross-country. I’d get to the halfway stage dying for a rest and be told ‘come on, we’ve been waiting for you’. And everyone who’d been resting would start off again.
For those with vestibulary seeking needs. That's what an EHCP is supposed to identify. (But it's highly unlikely you'll get a thorough sensory audit outwith a good special school). Unfortunately. These requirements don't fit the 45-50 minutes lesson timetable, nor the national curriculum. Which is why I'm not seeing how simply putting them in mainstream achieves anything other than saving money.
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.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
More than twice as many people apply for asylum in France as in UK. Are you saying the UK is so exceptional that it should be excused accepting any asylum seekers?
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.
Absolutely yes. Some posters do this thing where they post something in the aid of looking like it's just out of interest but is really just a way to explain why the Tories are actually good and why they should be supported.
Much more credit to people like Bart who actually have opposed them since leaving the party, unlike others who claim to be considering voting Labour but just ramp the Tories all day.
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.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
More than twice as many people apply for asylum in France as in UK. Are you saying the UK is so exceptional that it should be excused accepting any asylum seekers?
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.
This will be shown on journalism training courses for years to come on what happens when someone with no discernible news anchor ability is asked to deal with a breaking story
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.
TUD, lots of trouble to come, several other court cases coming up , government trying to hide Sturgeon evidence, Evans case, perjury case and probably others, few gooses going to be cooked for sure.
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.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning Anne. If you'd like to email me (nickmp1@aol.com), I'll sort that out.
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.
Absolutely yes. Some posters do this thing where they post something in the aid of looking like it's just out of interest but is really just a way to explain why the Tories are actually good and why they should be supported.
Much more credit to people like Bart who actually have opposed them since leaving the party, unlike others who claim to be considering voting Labour but just ramp the Tories all day.
If that is aimed at me than just for your own clarification I will not be voting labour and have not claimed I would ever since Johnson was deposed
And yes it is perfectly proper to relay reports of various issues from independent means and in this case from several different news organisations and if it is controversial then so be it
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
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.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
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.
Absolutely yes. Some posters do this thing where they post something in the aid of looking like it's just out of interest but is really just a way to explain why the Tories are actually good and why they should be supported.
Much more credit to people like Bart who actually have opposed them since leaving the party, unlike others who claim to be considering voting Labour but just ramp the Tories all day.
If that is aimed at me than just for your own clarification I will not be voting labour and have not claimed I would ever since Johnson was deposed
And yes it is perfectly proper to relay reports of various issues from independent means and in this case from several different news organisations and if it is controversial then so be it
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
PS there is a highland branch of thousands of them , even some American ones I bet.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
FWIW my RWC predictions for todays games... Japan v Chile - a very easy win for Japan - 20+ pts
South Africa v Scotland - this one will be very interesting - Scotland are on very good form and this is a must win game for them. But I dont think they will do it. South Africa to win but by 6 pts only with Scotland getting losing bonus point.
Wales v Fiji - this is very unpredictable - Wales were terrible in 6N but Gatland has now steadied the ship. We never saw a full Wales side in the warm up games and this is first time we will have an almost full side. Fiji are on top form especially after beating England and this game could go either way. But 'in Gatland we trust'. Wales by 5 (or Fiji by 5....or....??).
There was something in the Ireland game yesterday which made me wonder if they have the right killer mentality to win the World Cup that might seem counterintuitive.
The clock had hit 80mins and Ireland got possession and all they needed to do was kick the ball out and game over. Instead they kept playing and pushing for a try which they got to ensure they won by over 80 points rather than high 70s. One of the pundits was saying “that just shows the mentality of this team, they just want to score tries”.
That is fair enough and fine but you had a situation where they had millions of points already, they were playing in baking hot sun and there is every possibility one of their players could have got injured and missed other key group games for absolutely no real benefit.
A really hard focussed team would have booted that ball out asap and got into the changing rooms to prepare for next match. I don’t know whether it was over exuberance or hubris but they will need to be a lot more pragmatic if they want to win the whole thing.
I said exactly the same thing to some Irish friends yesterday...the game was dead and buried and they had already secured their bonus point. Nothing more to gain except a hamstring or a HIA...
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
So just to be clear - according to your own definition, you're a Sassenach, and therefore according to Heathener you 'ignore or overlook what is going on up there [Scotland]?'
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
Their buildings have no windows.
Should they be offered to Wagner as a place of refuge?
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
Their buildings have no windows.
It's just stopped luckily. Hope you get some cricket shortly.
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.
Saeson is Englishman (Saxon) Saesneg is English (language or people)
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.
Saeson is Englishman (Saxon) Saesneg is English (language or people)
And just to make everything neat and tidy, the country is Lloegr.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
Their buildings have no windows.
It's just stopped luckily. Hope you get some cricket shortly.
Not that bothered to be honest, CHB. I just like having a poke at the weather forecasters.
I don't like tipsters that never admit getting it wrong.
Now these guys would ban XL Bully dogs TOMORROW. If not TONIGHT
THIS is what we need. The smack of firm government
1/ Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov is reported to have had his Deputy Prime Minister and former Minister of Health Elkham Elkhan Suleymanov buried alive on suspicion of poisoning him. Suleymanov has neither been seen nor heard from since October 2022. ⬇️
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.
Saeson is Englishman (Saxon) Saesneg is English (language or people)
My lessons in the language of my fathers are infrequent. And practice even more spasmodic!
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
So it's OK for everyone from Yemen and Palestine to come? Or only white ones?
I am sure the fact that Ukrainians are white has nothing to do with the fact they're welcomed and aren't treated like those scummy off-white people coming in the boats. There is an undertone of racism in how we talk about these people that people would rather not like to admit.
The response is the predictable "you're actually on the side of Russia" when I make this point, even though I'm not and I am advocating that all refugees be treated the same. Ukranians don't get special treatment, that's fair.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
Their buildings have no windows.
It's just stopped luckily. Hope you get some cricket shortly.
Not that bothered to be honest, CHB. I just like having a poke at the weather forecasters.
I don't like tipsters that never admit getting it wrong.
I wouldn't be much of a tipster as I get it wrong mostly all the time. Although aren't tipsters famously unreliable too?
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.
TUD, lots of trouble to come, several other court cases coming up , government trying to hide Sturgeon evidence, Evans case, perjury case and probably others, few gooses going to be cooked for sure.
Well, for the last few weeks I've seen quite a few breathless tweets from Yoon and Wings adjacent accounts saying something HUGE is going to drop tomorrow re. Sturgeon & SNP, then nada, so I won't be holding my breath. Maybe that's why these guys are breathless..
Excellent thread header, thanks @TheScreamingEagles. I do have sympathy for the view of @Heathener that the last election is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. That said, I also think 2017 is an anomaly too.
I think Labour will probably get over the line and they may even smash it out of the park. The one concern I have is the manifesto. I know there's the view that election campaigns don't change very much, but I feel that the support for Labour is built largely on people being fed up with the Tories.
Labour pledged to stick to Tory spending plans for the first two years after 1997. I think people had a good idea of what they'd get from Labour (more of the same but with a bit more money for schools and hospitals and less sleaze). I don't think we're in the same position now.
If we take the view that people tend to vote against something more than they vote for something, then I think that puts Labour's dilemma into place.
At the moment, the focus is all on the Government because it's the Government and it is easy to criticise it all day long given Sunak, their decision making etc.
But come an election campaign, the focus will be on what a Labour Government would offer and many may not like it. Whether that's their ludicrously transparent trans policy, or putting VAT on private schools, or a feeling that Starmer will say anything to win power. My view is the campaign will matter a lot (which is why I think the Tories may be tempted to get rid of Sunak fairly quickly).
One other thing - this is not like the run-up to 1997. Unlike then, people are not losing their homes and jobs to recession. That will make a difference.
As there are people with Ukranian roots and family allowed to advocate for why we should be on the side of Ukraine in taking their refugees (and rightfully so), I have just as much right to use my own family and relatives to advocate for the plight of people from the Middle East too.
As I said, I am sure there would be no issue if the Middle Eastern folks were white. Pro-Ukraine bias, as plain as day.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
Do you know anything about the Middle East at all? This is legitimately one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this board.
Did you not see my graph? Russia is occupying 22 times as much territory as Israel is.
Russia is occupying territory from not only Ukraine, but also Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
You idiot they come in legally as refugees , not sneaking in on a dinghy as an economic migrant.
There is no legal route for a Yemeni refugee to get here. Why don't we setup legal routes for them too so they can come as refugees or do you only think Ukranians matter?
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.
One thing I do know is that Rwanda has 25mph limits in urban areas, so it's nearly as nice as Wales.
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 will give credit where it is due - England did play a tight controlled game after the red card - and kept the scoreboard ticking over. But they never looked close to scoring any tries.... Argentina played very poorly and when England come up against a stronger team you will take a beating.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
Do you know anything about the Middle East at all? This is legitimately one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this board.
Did you not see my graph? Russia is occupying 22 times as much territory as Israel is.
Russia is occupying territory from not only Ukraine, but also Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan.
Got nothing to do with Israel, stop making everything about Israel for goodness sake.
Yemen is currently in the middle of a war, do you agree that those refugees should be allowed to come here or do you think certain refugees are more valuable than others?
Ukraine doesn't get special treatment, their refugees aren't unique.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
So it's OK for everyone from Yemen and Palestine to come? Or only white ones?
By some definitions most Yeminis and Palestinians would be considered 'white', under the 'caucasian' label. In this country people of arab descent sometimes put White (other) as their ethnicity on the census (prior to 2011 there wasn't a separate prompt for Arab an ethnic group in any case)
And they would, I would hope, be more likely to meet the criteria for aslyum seekers and other refugees on the basis of the chaos in their homelands.
By some definitions most Yeminis and Palestinians would be considered 'white', under the 'caucasian' label. In this country people of arab descent sometimes put White (other) as their ethnicity on the census (prior to 2011 there wasn't a separate prompt for Arab an ethnic group in any case)
And they would, I would hope, be more likely to meet the criteria for aslyum seekers and other refugees on the basis of the chaos in their homelands.
There is no legal route setup for Yemenis, we aren't going to Yemen and inviting them over like the Ukranians. Why not?
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
So just to be clear - according to your own definition, you're a Sassenach, and therefore according to Heathener you 'ignore or overlook what is going on up there [Scotland]?'
Well I am Irish on my father's side and Scottish on my mother's and have a shedload of tartans to pick from, but was born in Ayrshire so would have to say Lowlander but very Scottish.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
The answer is because we invited them, and they are overwhelmingly female unlike the majority of asylum seekers who are young men.
So it's OK for brown females from Yemen and Palestine and their children to come then. Thanks for clarifying!
It's ok for us to decide on a case by case basis where the limits of our charity are. Extending an open-ended right to billions of people to come here is not sustainable.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
The answer is because we invited them, and they are overwhelmingly female unlike the majority of asylum seekers who are young men.
So it's OK for brown females from Yemen and Palestine and their children to come then. Thanks for clarifying!
It's ok for us to decide on a case by case basis where the limits of our charity are. Extending an open-ended right to billions of people to come here is not sustainable.
Extending the right to one other country? Why does Ukraine get special treatment? Answer the point.
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
So just to be clear - according to your own definition, you're a Sassenach, and therefore according to Heathener you 'ignore or overlook what is going on up there [Scotland]?'
Heathener is barking, would not know Scotland if she tripped over her flask and fell into it.
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.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
The first safe country "rule" is something of an urban myth.
The UK Government's unilateral position is that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. That's understandable as that's unlikely to be a northern European island. However, that simply isn't the position under the UN convention and international law.
Asylum seekers can pass through a safe country to claim asylum in another safe country. The fact they have cannot be held against them in processing their asylum claim. Most asylum seekers don't do that in fact - by far the most common place to make an asylum claim is the first safe country of arrival, and that's reflected in the numbers. But a fair number pass through a safe country to claim asylum in another safe country - they are fully entitled to do so under international law (often for reasons of family, linguistic, or cultural ties). The fact quite a lot of people in the UK would like international law to be different on this point doesn't mean it is.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
Do you know anything about the Middle East at all? This is legitimately one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this board.
Did you not see my graph? Russia is occupying 22 times as much territory as Israel is.
Russia is occupying territory from not only Ukraine, but also Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan.
Got nothing to do with Israel, stop making everything about Israel for goodness sake.
Yemen is currently in the middle of a war, do you agree that those refugees should be allowed to come here or do you think certain refugees are more valuable than others?
Ukraine doesn't get special treatment, their refugees aren't unique.
Russia is occupying territory belonging not only Ukraine, but also to Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan. Do you deny these geopolitical facts?
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.
One thing I do know is that Rwanda has 25mph limits in urban areas, so it's nearly as nice as Wales.
Weather is better according to the reliable forecasts we have
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
The answer is because we invited them, and they are overwhelmingly female unlike the majority of asylum seekers who are young men.
So it's OK for brown females from Yemen and Palestine and their children to come then. Thanks for clarifying!
It's ok for us to decide on a case by case basis where the limits of our charity are. Extending an open-ended right to billions of people to come here is not sustainable.
Extending the right to one other country? Why does Ukraine get special treatment? Answer the point.
Why shouldn't it? Anyone who supports EU free movement can't argue against special treatment on principle.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
Do you know anything about the Middle East at all? This is legitimately one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this board.
Did you not see my graph? Russia is occupying 22 times as much territory as Israel is.
Russia is occupying territory from not only Ukraine, but also Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan.
Got nothing to do with Israel, stop making everything about Israel for goodness sake.
Yemen is currently in the middle of a war, do you agree that those refugees should be allowed to come here or do you think certain refugees are more valuable than others?
Ukraine doesn't get special treatment, their refugees aren't unique.
Of course he doesn't Sunil has pulled up the drawbridge after his family arrived.
Mind you SKS doesn't believe in equal treatment either.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Ukrainians are actually at war and being killed by Russians as we speak
Do you know anything about the Middle East at all? This is legitimately one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this board.
Coming from you that takes the biscuit
Why don't you address what I said.
Do you agree that Yemen is currently in the middle of a war?
There are wars and disputes across the globe, but in the case of Ukrainians then the whole of Europe is providing a safe haven and as one of the leading countries supporting Ukraine in their war against Putin it is correct that we take our share and it is widely supported across the UK
The problem we see in the channel and the Mediterranean is extremely serious and is causing great concern across the whole of Europe and is a subject that will intensify as wars continue and climate change create flows of peoples into Europe
I do not know the answer nor does anyone but an answer will have to be found
By some definitions most Yeminis and Palestinians would be considered 'white', under the 'caucasian' label. In this country people of arab descent sometimes put White (other) as their ethnicity on the census (prior to 2011 there wasn't a separate prompt for Arab an ethnic group in any case)
And they would, I would hope, be more likely to meet the criteria for aslyum seekers and other refugees on the basis of the chaos in their homelands.
There is no legal route setup for Yemenis, we aren't going to Yemen and inviting them over like the Ukranians. Why not?
Government priorities, and because no country in the world cares about Yemen (except, unfortunately for them, those using it as a proxy battle in the region). I'm not going to defend the government's poor record on refugees and asylum in general, I was just noting that blaming antipathy against non white people is overly simplistic, because a lot of people from the middle east are pretty 'white', such as that is a thing, particularly in the near middle east.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
You idiot they come in legally as refugees , not sneaking in on a dinghy as an economic migrant.
There is no legal route for a Yemeni refugee to get here. Why don't we setup legal routes for them too so they can come as refugees or do you only think Ukranians matter?
Personally I would limit everybody as per Australia, let in only people that there are job vacancies for and I would make them put £10K in a pot, till they had paid 5 years taxes, for any public services , health etc they may use till productive. Sure you would be delighted to take in a Yemeni refugee though.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
It's raining in Hampshire now, I am here
You really should phone the weather centre. They appear to be unaware.
Their buildings have no windows.
It's just stopped luckily. Hope you get some cricket shortly.
Not that bothered to be honest, CHB. I just like having a poke at the weather forecasters.
I don't like tipsters that never admit getting it wrong.
I wouldn't be much of a tipster as I get it wrong mostly all the time. Although aren't tipsters famously unreliable too?
Yes, but you can check the results of tipsters very easily. You try figuring how accurate weather forecasts are.
Because it's a subject that interests me I can tell you that they get it right about 80% of the time, which sounds ok - except that you and I would probably guess it right 70% of the time anyway, and it's the 'difficult' calls that you most need to be right.
You ever heard one of them say 'Sorry, we called it wrong yesterday'? No,neither have I. Tipsters are honest and open by comparison.
By some definitions most Yeminis and Palestinians would be considered 'white', under the 'caucasian' label. In this country people of arab descent sometimes put White (other) as their ethnicity on the census (prior to 2011 there wasn't a separate prompt for Arab an ethnic group in any case)
And they would, I would hope, be more likely to meet the criteria for aslyum seekers and other refugees on the basis of the chaos in their homelands.
There is no legal route setup for Yemenis, we aren't going to Yemen and inviting them over like the Ukranians. Why not?
Government priorities, and because no country in the world cares about Yemen (except, unfortunately for them, those using it as a proxy battle in the region). I'm not going to defend the government's poor record on refugees and asylum in general, I was just noting that blaming antipathy against non white people is overly simplistic, because a lot of people from the middle east are pretty 'white', such as that is a thing, particularly in the near middle east.
These idiots who have no clue always wheel out the racist element. Once they have been hammered over their pathetic stupid positions, you can guarantee it becomes "Racist".
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.
Carnyx far cleverer than me OKC and has answered perfectly
How do you know he's not a Highlander? There is a Highland branch of his clan.
I cannot state where he was born but living in Dundee area means at present he is not a highlander. He may clear it up and claim to be Highlander by birth to ease your troubled mind though. @DavidL
So just to be clear - according to your own definition, you're a Sassenach, and therefore according to Heathener you 'ignore or overlook what is going on up there [Scotland]?'
Heathener is barking, would not know Scotland if she tripped over her flask and fell into it.
But you were actually saying she was right on this point.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
The answer is because we invited them, and they are overwhelmingly female unlike the majority of asylum seekers who are young men.
So it's OK for brown females from Yemen and Palestine and their children to come then. Thanks for clarifying!
It's ok for us to decide on a case by case basis where the limits of our charity are. Extending an open-ended right to billions of people to come here is not sustainable.
Do you think racism is a factor in who we invite? Pretty clear to me people in the Yemen are at least as worthy cause but won't be welcomed in the same way.
You need to explain why they can't stay in France, a safe country.
Why are Ukranians coming here? There are plenty of safe countries between here and Ukraine.
Why are Ukranian refugees any more refugees than people from Iraq? They aren't.
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
The answer is because we invited them, and they are overwhelmingly female unlike the majority of asylum seekers who are young men.
So it's OK for brown females from Yemen and Palestine and their children to come then. Thanks for clarifying!
The sex of a refugee always seemed irrelevant to me. If you are a Ukranian man fleeing a war then you're just as in danger as a Yemeni woman.
The pro-Ukraine bias of some is really sickening.
"pro-Ukraine bias of some is really sickening" and you wonder why some might thing you have to put it lightly a soft spot for Russia?
You do realise don't you that Ukrainian men have been conscripted and are forbidden to leave Ukraine because they are needed to fight for and defend their homeland. Just as happened in this country the last time it was threatened with invasion.
So most refugees coming here from Ukraine are women and children, not men.
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.
One thing I do know is that Rwanda has 25mph limits in urban areas, so it's nearly as nice as Wales.
Why is there no cricket being played in Southampton?
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
Comments
https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1700608937957953609
I’d get to the halfway stage dying for a rest and be told ‘come on, we’ve been waiting for you’. And everyone who’d been resting would start off again.
I think Labour will probably get over the line and they may even smash it out of the park. The one concern I have is the manifesto. I know there's the view that election campaigns don't change very much, but I feel that the support for Labour is built largely on people being fed up with the Tories.
Labour pledged to stick to Tory spending plans for the first two years after 1997. I think people had a good idea of what they'd get from Labour (more of the same but with a bit more money for schools and hospitals and less sleaze). I don't think we're in the same position now.
Seriously, the level of “you are not welcome here” that the French apply is quite real.
Rory Stewart confesses to being a bit of a creep
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/10/tory-rory-stewart-i-was-a-creep-in-parliament/
Have we discussed if this is something SKS is to offer?
Compare too, the effort that went into making West Germany and Japan success stories.
Africa is seen mainly as a source of natural resources, both by its elites, and by Western governments, the Chinese, and Russia. Few people with influence have any vested interest in good governance.
This is not complicated.
Unfortunately. These requirements don't fit the 45-50 minutes lesson timetable, nor the national curriculum.
Which is why I'm not seeing how simply putting them in mainstream achieves anything other than saving money.
As I predicted, sadly
An XL Bully captured on camera savaging multiple people
https://x.com/bullywatchuk/status/1700617924321443985?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will belatedly act. Fucking morons
Much more credit to people like Bart who actually have opposed them since leaving the party, unlike others who claim to be considering voting Labour but just ramp the Tories all day.
It reminds of when Windows computers start flubbing and run through 5 apps in 5 seconds.
I imagine 90% of the country now wants these dogs banned, the spineless inertia of the government beggars belief
And yes it is perfectly proper to relay reports of various issues from independent means and in this case from several different news organisations and if it is controversial then so be it
According to the BBC Weather Forecast it is sunny with a gentle breeze, and has been that way all morning. Could it be they got it wrong by some chance?
So why don't you address my question, why are Ukrainians able to come here despite the many safe countries between here and there and not Iraqis?
Your continued implication that I am somehow pro-Russia when I am obviously not is starting to seriously grate.
Their buildings have no windows.
Saesneg is English (language or people)
I don't like tipsters that never admit getting it wrong.
Worse than ours.
THIS is what we need. The smack of firm government
1/ Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov is reported to have had his Deputy Prime Minister and former Minister of Health Elkham Elkhan Suleymanov buried alive on suspicion of poisoning him. Suleymanov has neither been seen nor heard from since October 2022. ⬇️
https://x.com/chriso_wiki/status/1700800571920228402?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Or only white ones?
The response is the predictable "you're actually on the side of Russia" when I make this point, even though I'm not and I am advocating that all refugees be treated the same. Ukranians don't get special treatment, that's fair.
We are responsible for a lot of the issues in the Middle East today, they should be invited too.
Do you agree that Yemen is currently in the middle of a war?
At the moment, the focus is all on the Government because it's the Government and it is easy to criticise it all day long given Sunak, their decision making etc.
But come an election campaign, the focus will be on what a Labour Government would offer and many may not like it. Whether that's their ludicrously transparent trans policy, or putting VAT on private schools, or a feeling that Starmer will say anything to win power. My view is the campaign will matter a lot (which is why I think the Tories may be tempted to get rid of Sunak fairly quickly).
One other thing - this is not like the run-up to 1997. Unlike then, people are not losing their homes and jobs to recession. That will make a difference.
As I said, I am sure there would be no issue if the Middle Eastern folks were white. Pro-Ukraine bias, as plain as day.
Russia is occupying territory from not only Ukraine, but also Moldova and Georgia, and a case can also be made for the South Kuril islands claimed by Japan.
Yemen is currently in the middle of a war, do you agree that those refugees should be allowed to come here or do you think certain refugees are more valuable than others?
Ukraine doesn't get special treatment, their refugees aren't unique.
And they would, I would hope, be more likely to meet the criteria for aslyum seekers and other refugees on the basis of the chaos in their homelands.
Pro-Ukraine bias. As usual.
The pro-Ukraine bias of some is really sickening.
The UK Government's unilateral position is that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. That's understandable as that's unlikely to be a northern European island. However, that simply isn't the position under the UN convention and international law.
Asylum seekers can pass through a safe country to claim asylum in another safe country. The fact they have cannot be held against them in processing their asylum claim. Most asylum seekers don't do that in fact - by far the most common place to make an asylum claim is the first safe country of arrival, and that's reflected in the numbers. But a fair number pass through a safe country to claim asylum in another safe country - they are fully entitled to do so under international law (often for reasons of family, linguistic, or cultural ties). The fact quite a lot of people in the UK would like international law to be different on this point doesn't mean it is.
Now I have to pop off I am afraid, PS it's raining again in Hampshire.
Mind you SKS doesn't believe in equal treatment either.
The problem we see in the channel and the Mediterranean is extremely serious and is causing great concern across the whole of Europe and is a subject that will intensify as wars continue and climate change create flows of peoples into Europe
I do not know the answer nor does anyone but an answer will have to be found
Sure you would be delighted to take in a Yemeni refugee though.
Because it's a subject that interests me I can tell you that they get it right about 80% of the time, which sounds ok - except that you and I would probably guess it right 70% of the time anyway, and it's the 'difficult' calls that you most need to be right.
You ever heard one of them say 'Sorry, we called it wrong yesterday'? No,neither have I. Tipsters are honest and open by comparison.
You do realise don't you that Ukrainian men have been conscripted and are forbidden to leave Ukraine because they are needed to fight for and defend their homeland. Just as happened in this country the last time it was threatened with invasion.
So most refugees coming here from Ukraine are women and children, not men.