So you have inherited a performative small boats policy that has no chance of success or even delivering a photo opportunity. Your Home Secretary is famously useless and in the end even you have to sack her. A day later the Supreme Court rules her policy illegal.
Do you - A) Put the blame for the imcompetent shit-show on the departing Home Minister, scrap the failed farce and actually try to produce a genuine policy on the immigration issue. Because we do very much need one and the Con party has very much failed to produce one during the last thirteen years.
or,
Adopt the same failed policy in a way that alienates both sides of your own party. Then produce a Bill on breaking international law without even consulting your partner in the scheme as to whether they approve. Thus giving 'Honest' Paul Kagame the chance to just trouser your £155 million and give you bugger all in return. A Bill that has zero chance of getting through both Houses before the frustrated electorate have had their wicked way with you.
I think you may also find older people support public spending especially if it's something the children or better yet the grandchildren might enjoy or use.
Paid for by other people.
Suggest ramping rates and lowering thresholds for inheritance tax, introducing land value taxation, or abolishing the sodding triple lock and see how far you get.
Even lefty Kinabalu wants to keep his free 60+ travel pass because he enjoys it.....
We don't have to batter the elderly and take all their goodies away, it's simply a matter of proportion. I draw the line at huge state pension hikes every bloody year for the beneficiaries of old fashioned final salary pension schemes, living in million pound houses in Surrey and whose biggest dilemma in life isn't so much heating versus eating as whether to go to Madeira or the Amalfi Coast on this year's cruise. These are the kinds of ideas that make one a dangerous revolutionary in Britain in 2023, which goes a long way to explaining why we, as a society, are terminally screwed.
So you have inherited a performative small boats policy that has no chance of success or even delivering a photo opportunity. Your Home Secretary is famously useless and in the end even you have to sack her. A day later the Supreme Court rules her policy illegal.
Do you - A) Put the blame for the imcompetent shit-show on the departing Home Minister, scrap the failed farce and actually try to produce a genuine policy on the immigration issue. Because we do very much need one and the Con party has very much failed to produce one during the last thirteen years.
or,
Adopt the same failed policy in a way that alienates both sides of your own party. Then produce a Bill on breaking international law without even consulting your partner in the scheme as to whether they approve. Thus giving 'Honest' Paul Kagame the chance to just trouser your £155 million and give you bugger all in return. A Bill that has zero chance of getting through both Houses before the frustrated electorate have had their wicked way with you.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 6m Jenrick says the bill is a “triumph of hope over experience” - ie it won’t work.
He promises his support to his long-standing friend Sunak from the backbenches. But he also makes clear he’ll be campaigning on this issue and others. Positioned for leadership bid later down line?
We’re in danger of starting to become that international embarrassment again, like we were during the Brexit shenanigans in 2019 and during partygate and then the Truss period. It always makes my efforts with foreign clients thinking of investing here that bit more difficult.
I really hope the news cycle can move on to some more bog standard areas of government failure soon, like economic productivity, healthcare, pollution, social care, not building infrastructure or houses etc.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 6m Jenrick says the bill is a “triumph of hope over experience” - ie it won’t work.
He promises his support to his long-standing friend Sunak from the backbenches. But he also makes clear he’ll be campaigning on this issue and others. Positioned for leadership bid later down line?
Braverman's potential Chancellor was my thought
Shadow Chancellor, anyway.
And they're probably both disconnected from reality enough to think that is a prize worth winning.
Labour’s national campaign coordinator Pat McFadden said: “This latest chaotic chapter demonstrates why the country is ready for change. And Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party stands ready.
“The British people deserve a government that will fix the issues that matter to working people, not a Tory circus of gimmicks and leadership posturing.”
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 13m For all the criticisms, 'you & I have been friends for a long time' is probably the single most hurtful line in this letter
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Two problems to overcome.
First is that, after the Kwarteng Katastrophe, the financial markets will be onto anything unsustainable.
Second, that implies that this lot can limp on until March before calling the election. If this were a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the bout by now.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
It’s always a mistake to commit to the impossible. Stop the boats is a great slogan, but an undeliverable promise.
Jenrick’s letter is fairly well written, but it is unrealistic in a few places.
The most obvious example of this is on page 2: “However, we said that we would stop the boats altogether. That is what the public rightly demands and expects of us”.
Did they really promise that? If so then they were making a completely unachievable promise. It’s the equivalent of promising to prevent 100% of cocaine smuggling into Britain. Sensibly no government has ever promised that.
And does the public really demand and expect that of them? Well they certainly don’t expect it. They’re not that stupid. But I doubt the majority demand it either. They just want the numbers to go down a lot.
The small boats messaging has been mismanaged. The government could have been trumpeting the relative success in reducing numbers in 2023 and saying there’s more work to do but we’re on course. Instead they keep setting themselves targets they can’t meet.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
They came up with a stupid gimmick they thought would appeal to the right, and now they're trapped by it. Rwanda is like a lesser version of Brexit.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
They came up with a stupid gimmick they thought would appeal to the right, and now they're trapped by it. Rwanda is like a lesser version of Brexit.
Unfortunately, like Brexit it presents traps for Labour too.
But not the Lib Dems or SNP, who can afford to be more righteously indignant.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
This is the first dying government I think I’ve seen where Number 10 has just completely lost control of the messaging. Even in the nadir of Majors government, or Browns, or when under May the Tories were basically ungovernable, you could still trust the Cabinet Office to at least try to present a consistent and positive narrative.
Now it just feels like everyone has given up and doesn’t really want to do this anymore.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Indeed, especially when you imagine just quite how many different immigration policies he could rotate through in another 6 months.
So you have inherited a performative small boats policy that has no chance of success or even delivering a photo opportunity. Your Home Secretary is famously useless and in the end even you have to sack her. A day later the Supreme Court rules her policy illegal.
Do you - A) Put the blame for the imcompetent shit-show on the departing Home Minister, scrap the failed farce and actually try to produce a genuine policy on the immigration issue. Because we do very much need one and the Con party has very much failed to produce one during the last thirteen years.
or,
Adopt the same failed policy in a way that alienates both sides of your own party. Then produce a Bill on breaking international law without even consulting your partner in the scheme as to whether they approve. Thus giving 'Honest' Paul Kagame the chance to just trouser your £155 million and give you bugger all in return. A Bill that has zero chance of getting through both Houses before the frustrated electorate have had their wicked way with you.
Guess which one Mr Sunak chose.
Not very good at this is he.
The fundamental problem is that there is no workable immigration policy that's acceptable to the Tory Right or to the immigration-obsessed fraction of the Conservative voter base. The Government can't get rid of cheap foreign labour in the health and care sectors without either taxing the crap out of its core vote to pay for an enormous increase in domestic recruitment, training and pay, or reducing/abolishing service provision; and it can't put all the boat people on planes and ship them off to Africa without dismantling much of the UK's human rights legislative framework. Even if the Government could survive detonating the TCA and the whole of the rest of the architecture of its relationship with the EU, abrogating the European Convention on Human Rights would also invalidate the Good Friday Agreement, which the Americans would never allow.
The same conditions would apply regardless of who was in power. The entire Rwandan pantomime is a performance to placate the gullible and always has been.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
If he has an escape route (Silicon valley?) lined up yes I absolutely could see Sunak giving up 6 months of being PM.
It’s a completely thankless task at this point, and he’s not very good at it. And let’s not kid ourselves it’s going to measurably improve for him in the next 9 months.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
If the Tories had opened a UK asylum processing centre in Rwanda it would have made it so much harder to oppose politically and in the courts. It would almost certainly be up and running by now. I really don't understand why they didn't do it.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
I don't quite understand. Has Jenrick gone because the bill is beastly to foreigners, or not beastly enough?
The latter . Jenrick is a vile scum sucking migrant hater .
21K majority.
Is that enough in the coming sea change election?
No chance.
Notionally his survival would suggest at least 157 Tory MPs in the new House, which is plausible, though not certain. Tactical voting and his own personal unpleasantness however should be sufficient to guarantee he will go overboard.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
Snap. Yes, it seems decidedly weird PR.
See also yesterday where a rather good news (for England / Wales) story on Education was lost by a pointless focus on Rwanda...
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
This is the first dying government I think I’ve seen where Number 10 has just completely lost control of the messaging. Even in the nadir of Majors government, or Browns, or when under May the Tories were basically ungovernable, you could still trust the Cabinet Office to at least try to present a consistent and positive narrative.
Now it just feels like everyone has given up and doesn’t really want to do this anymore.
The most incredible thing is to lose control completely whilst having a 56 seat majority. At least Major, May and Callaghan had the excuse of a tiny majority, or none at all.
I'm trying to cook Le Relais de Venise's sauce to go with a huge bit of fillet steak I bought earlier (300g, just for me)
So far, I've cooked a medium white diced onion in butter, almost fried but not quite. You want the onions to be translucent but not at all browned
Then add the rest of the butter, 250g total, 30g of anchovies, ten capers, a handful of tarragon leaves, a handful of parsley leaves, ten basil leaves and ten sage leaves (I didn't have chervil so substituted with parsley and sage), a teaspoon of freshly grated nutmeg, two teaspoons of ground pepper
Warm through and then pour into blender and blend well
And here I am.. Next I have the tricky bit of making a kind of mayonnaise sauce from this with egg yolk, lemon juice, mustard and Worcestershire sauce
ETA this is the recipe for sauce for 6 people. I'm going to put two thirds of what I've cooked into a jar for the next two times and only make a bit too much sauce for tonight's steak and chips
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
Plus net departures and arrivals of students will come closer to historical levels.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It’s a good point. Starmer may well get lucky on this, and the Tories will have taken the flak for all the bad decisions beforehand.
I’m not sure the no dependents rule will survive though. It’s going to put off a large proportion of health and care workers from coming, so unless they either discover a magical productivity solution, or unaffordable pay surge, I reckon they’ll need to reverse it.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Indeed, especially when you imagine just quite how many different immigration policies he could rotate through in another 6 months.
Might even bolster his chances of a board seat on one of Musk's companies if he awards a fat contract to shoot the small boats towards Mars. Those trying to come here but earning less than a cabinet office lackey (plus London weighting of course) just fired to the relatively hospitable climes of the Moon.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
This one is a keeper.
For all these reasons plus the post Covid unwind on students it would be mathematically challenging for this not to happen.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
Every month extra he stays as PM adds a few thousand more to his worth on the lecture circuit and to corporate boards as well as his place in the league table of PMs in the history books.
Calling an early general election he likely loses heavily anyway even if it saves a handful of Tory seats is not worth it for him unless polls show he has a real chance to win it
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Yes indeed, you must look to that sliver lining from your perspective.
There has been certain pleasure for those of us on the left to take from ridiculing the gross ineptitude of the government since 2010 but I would give it up in a flash for 13 years of competent government under anyone-but-the-Tories.
Of course, many of you natural PB-Conservatives have (rightly) long ago given up on this current shambles so you've already had plenty of experience of government bashing, but it can't be quite as enjoyable when you're bashing what is supposed to be your own side, that you voted for.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Jenrick resigns. And people claim that it is Starmer that is the lucky general? Sunak will wipe more intellect off the bottom of his shoes. Good rid.
No, not really, because regardless of Jenrick's qualities, or lack thereof, Rishi lacks any sense of control over his party or of events, and that spells problems for his prospects.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
They came up with a stupid gimmick they thought would appeal to the right, and now they're trapped by it. Rwanda is like a lesser version of Brexit.
There may be something in this. Why has Rwanda become the be all and end all of solutions?
Jenrick resigns. And people claim that it is Starmer that is the lucky general? Sunak will wipe more intellect off the bottom of his shoes. Good rid.
No, not really, because regardless of Jenrick's qualities, or lack thereof, Rishi lacks any sense of control over his party or of events, and that spells problems for his prospects.
It says a lot of Sunak and not in a good way that he counts the likes of Jenrick, Braverman, Williamson, Cummings etc as his friends.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
... But they'll wring their hands while doing evil. It makes all the difference.
Downloaded John Williams greatest hits to cheer me up.
It never ceases to amaze me just how amazing a composer he his. Nails it. Hit after hit. Beautiful orchestral pieces that perfectly capture the mood of the movie. For over five decades. And he's still going at 92.
Raiders March at the moment. Still fantastic. He's a genius.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
The principal one of which was the returns agreement with Albania?
And guess what, Labour's small boat policy is to negotiate returns agreements with EU countries. It's not rocket science.
But instead the Tories have gone down a Rwanda blind alley.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Such is the lot of an incoming government.
They also will have to face heat for various things going badly that are the result of actions already taken (or out of government control entirely), so it all evens out. They should get at least an entire term of blaming bad things on the last government and the good things as all down to them.
The fortunate government gets 2 whole terms to play that card.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Indeed, especially when you imagine just quite how many different immigration policies he could rotate through in another 6 months.
Might even bolster his chances of a board seat on one of Musk's companies if he awards a fat contract to shoot the small boats towards Mars. Those trying to come here but earning less than a cabinet office lackey (plus London weighting of course) just fired to the relatively hospitable climes of the Moon.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Hey, Casino, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Labour fans will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, election leaflets, dodgy bar charts...
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
They came up with a stupid gimmick they thought would appeal to the right, and now they're trapped by it. Rwanda is like a lesser version of Brexit.
There may be something in this. Why has Rwanda become the be all and end all of solutions?
Because it was there? An A4 bit of paper with 'Rwanda LOL!!!111!!' written on it and sellotaped to the Cabinet table when he walked in?
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Though mostly Labour supporters are looking on in amusement while Tories Trash Talk their own side.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Sorry, not intending to be. Just pointing out that vitamin A is an organic compound, and looking at actual data suggests the idea that one peach used to supply all the Vit A required and now you need 30 is totally implausible. The depletion of the soil is real, but the results are not as stark as your friend is claiming.
Jenrick resigns. And people claim that it is Starmer that is the lucky general? Sunak will wipe more intellect off the bottom of his shoes. Good rid.
No, not really, because regardless of Jenrick's qualities, or lack thereof, Rishi lacks any sense of control over his party or of events, and that spells problems for his prospects.
It says a lot of Sunak and not in a good way that he counts the likes of Jenrick, Braverman, Williamson, Cummings etc as his friends.
I was thinking of Jenrick thinking he was Sunak’s friend in the way Oliver Quick is Felix’s “friend” in Saltburn. He’s an interesting pleb who gets tagged along with the rich kids as being a bit sad but ultimately is an evil toxic presence who brings the downfall of Felix and his friends.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
But the lesson of Brown is the longer you wait, the worse the outcome.
I don't quite understand. Has Jenrick gone because the bill is beastly to foreigners, or not beastly enough?
That's exactly why he's gone.
He’s gone because he’s an unpleasant little shit who’s seen an opportunity to rise in the party. Out of office, his interventions don’t have to make any more sense than Sunak’s nonsense, as they’ll never encounter reality.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
Is that the official line of the modern Tory party? I'm not entirely sure it's been focus grouped enough if it is.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Sunak is no doubt clever, unfortunately he is also incompetent. He appears to be absolutely hopeless at very basic aspects of party politics. It's quite impressive in a "bless him" sort of way.
I do hope the Tories can fit in another leadership election before the general election, not because I believe it to be a good idea, but I am curious about just how low the Tory vote can plummet.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
The principal one of which was the returns agreement with Albania?
And guess what, Labour's small boat policy is to negotiate returns agreements with EU countries. It's not rocket science.
But instead the Tories have gone down a Rwanda blind alley.
Labour to EU countries: we'd like to negotiate a returns agreement.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
But the lesson of Brown is the longer you wait, the worse the outcome.
If you lose power either way that may not be that big a dissuader. A big loss or a really big loss is all the same to any ambitious Tory knowing they will be out of power regardless.
Plus, while Brown did lose he was not that far away from a chance of holding on to power, which after 13 years in power is not a terrible outcome.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
Rwanda has become some bizarre article of faith. Like Clause 4, but madder.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
Is that the official line of the modern Tory party? I'm not entirely sure it's been focus grouped enough if it is.
Well, it must be. HYUFD was all over INHERITANCE INHERITANCE for weeks, and he's suddenly pivoted to FURRIN IMMIGRATION as if Epping was being swamped by folk from Waltham Abbey and the Parish Council were manning roadblocks on the Theydon Bois road. Must be what CCHQ are sending out as the plat de la semaine.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I presume you'll be giving the incoming Labour Government a suitable honeymoon - 7 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes or 7 seconds?
Seriously, any new Government will be able to get away with blaming its predecessors for a while. The Blair/Brown Governments get plenty of blame on here for what's happened with the country and they were a long time ago.
The truth is the Conservative Party has led the Government of this country for thirteen and a half years - that's time to make progress on even the most intractable issues and yet here we are...with Conservative supporters getting ready to blame the next Government.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It’s a good point. Starmer may well get lucky on this, and the Tories will have taken the flak for all the bad decisions beforehand.
I’m not sure the no dependents rule will survive though. It’s going to put off a large proportion of health and care workers from coming, so unless they either discover a magical productivity solution, or unaffordable pay surge, I reckon they’ll need to reverse it.
I am not keen on it at all, but there will always be poor countries to mine for single people ready to live in terrible conditions and take low pay jobs so that they can send money home. The Philippines, for example. Working in a UKL care home may look a lot more attractive than living in a box and working for a demanding family in Hong Kong or the Gulf.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
It will be an interesting dynamic. As much as many on here despise the current incumbents, I suspect quite a few also enjoy ripping apart everything they do, whether fair or not. While Labour will get some honeymoon, the problems the country faces will not magically improve when Starmer kisses Charles ring (is that what happens?).
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
I'd rather we hammer Big Food. Those fuckers are poisoning us whilst raking in billions.
Big Food, no, locally-owned takeaways do more damage. I live in a town of 9,000 people. I can count 10 takeaways that do home deliveries.
But do not they depend on a supply of mass-produced pre-prepared food? Edit: and/or the ingredients.
Maybe not so much the straight fish and chips people. But burgers, pizzas etc.
But portion size is down to them. When I buy a "pierce the lid in several places and microwave for 5 minutes" meal, there will be half the container for curry and the other half for rice. At a takeaway you get a container of each , i.e. twice the amount.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
Rwanda has become some bizarre article of faith. Like Clause 4, but madder.
Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Why would I provide a slither of evidence when I haven't even made the claim? Read. The. Post.
If the Tories had opened a UK asylum processing centre in Rwanda it would have made it so much harder to oppose politically and in the courts. It would almost certainly be up and running by now. I really don't understand why they didn't do it.
Probably a confused and desperate attempt to get the boat people out from under the jurisdiction of British courts. Setting up a UK asylum facility in Kigali would be no different from setting one up in Dorking: if claims remain subject to appeal through the UK legal system then the large majority of the boat people will always get to stay. Putting the facility in Kigali would merely necessitate the additional expense of flying them all out and back again.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Here it’s village vs town. My parents, in a local village of about 2000 people, can get to see the GP easily. Me, in a town of 20,000 struggles (although accessing other healthcare professionals works ok).
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
The principal one of which was the returns agreement with Albania?
And guess what, Labour's small boat policy is to negotiate returns agreements with EU countries. It's not rocket science.
But instead the Tories have gone down a Rwanda blind alley.
Labour to EU countries: we'd like to negotiate a returns agreement.
EU countries: no.
Not only the tories down a blind alley.
Tories to Rwanda: We'd like to give you £150m to take our refugees. Rwanda: Fine, send the money to this account... Rwanda (aside): No f*cking chance they'll ever send us a single person. Ahahaha...
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Sunak's big mistake was not being vague enough in his small boat pledge. As soon as he said "stop the boats" he created an implicit target that would be almost impossible to meet. People are well aware of the risk they take crossing the channel, the only thing that would really stop them entirely is the Royal Navy sinking every boat it located.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
Plus net departures and arrivals of students will come closer to historical levels.
Exactly - the trend is going to be lower numbers. Such has been the ineptitude of the Tories' approach to both immigration and the economy that there is a decent upside for Labour in only being not ridiculously incompetent. Will we suddenly see a surge in productivity and GDP? I very much doubt it. But you don't need either for people to feel better off than they do now.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Why would I provide a slither of evidence when I haven't even made the claim? Read. The. Post.
To be fair you dropped the claim into the conversation, and made no effort to substantiate it. A few seconds on the internet shows it’s utter bunk.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Sunak's big mistake was not being vague enough in his small boat pledge. As soon as he said "stop the boats" he created an implicit target that would be almost impossible to meet. People are well aware of the risk they take crossing the channel, the only thing that would really stop them entirely is the Royal Navy sinking every boat it located.
He got into a promises battle with Liz Truss. Bad move.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
I'm trying to think of really inventive insults for the inevitable time when the new Labour ministerial team still do everything those drunken retards at the DfE ask of them to fuck children over.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
Presumably also payment by results,and generally the receipt of grief from on high or lack of, aka meeting government targets, is easier in less demanding areas etc. Free market innit.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It’s a good point. Starmer may well get lucky on this, and the Tories will have taken the flak for all the bad decisions beforehand.
I’m not sure the no dependents rule will survive though. It’s going to put off a large proportion of health and care workers from coming, so unless they either discover a magical productivity solution, or unaffordable pay surge, I reckon they’ll need to reverse it.
I am not keen on it at all, but there will always be poor countries to mine for single people ready to live in terrible conditions and take low pay jobs so that they can send money home. The Philippines, for example. Working in a UKL care home may look a lot more attractive than living in a box and working for a demanding family in Hong Kong or the Gulf.
Pretty much all the 'hotel' staff on every cruise are people from south or east Asia doing exactly that - living away from their families for long stretches in order to send money back to give those families a better future.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
But the lesson of Brown is the longer you wait, the worse the outcome.
Brown, to be fair to him, got a UK hung parliament in 2010 and won a majority in Scotland which was better than Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2019 managed.
Comments
Do you - A) Put the blame for the imcompetent shit-show on the departing Home Minister, scrap the failed farce and actually try to produce a genuine policy on the immigration issue. Because we do very much need one and the Con party has very much failed to produce one during the last thirteen years.
or,
Guess which one Mr Sunak chose.
Not very good at this is he.
I really hope the news cycle can move on to some more bog standard areas of government failure soon, like economic productivity, healthcare, pollution, social care, not building infrastructure or houses etc.
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
·
4m
Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
And they're probably both disconnected from reality enough to think that is a prize worth winning.
“The British people deserve a government that will fix the issues that matter to working people, not a Tory circus of gimmicks and leadership posturing.”
Guardina live blog
@gabyhinsliff
·
13m
For all the criticisms, 'you & I have been friends for a long time' is probably the single most hurtful line in this letter
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
First is that, after the Kwarteng Katastrophe, the financial markets will be onto anything unsustainable.
Second, that implies that this lot can limp on until March before calling the election. If this were a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the bout by now.
The most obvious example of this is on page 2: “However, we said that we would stop the boats altogether. That is what the public rightly demands and expects of us”.
Did they really promise that? If so then they were making a completely unachievable promise. It’s the equivalent of promising to prevent 100% of cocaine smuggling into Britain. Sensibly no government has ever promised that.
And does the public really demand and expect that of them? Well they certainly don’t expect it. They’re not that stupid. But I doubt the majority demand it either. They just want the numbers to go down a lot.
The small boats messaging has been mismanaged. The government could have been trumpeting the relative success in reducing numbers in 2023 and saying there’s more work to do but we’re on course. Instead they keep setting themselves targets they can’t meet.
But not the Lib Dems or SNP, who can afford to be more righteously indignant.
Now it just feels like everyone has given up and doesn’t really want to do this anymore.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
The same conditions would apply regardless of who was in power. The entire Rwandan pantomime is a performance to placate the gullible and always has been.
It’s a completely thankless task at this point, and he’s not very good at it. And let’s not kid ourselves it’s going to measurably improve for him in the next 9 months.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1732468383260483645?s=46
Notionally his survival would suggest at least 157 Tory MPs in the new House, which is plausible, though not certain. Tactical voting and his own personal unpleasantness however should be sufficient to guarantee he will go overboard.
So far, I've cooked a medium white diced onion in butter, almost fried but not quite. You want the onions to be translucent but not at all browned
Then add the rest of the butter, 250g total, 30g of anchovies, ten capers, a handful of tarragon leaves, a handful of parsley leaves, ten basil leaves and ten sage leaves (I didn't have chervil so substituted with parsley and sage), a teaspoon of freshly grated nutmeg, two teaspoons of ground pepper
Warm through and then pour into blender and blend well
And here I am.. Next I have the tricky bit of making a kind of mayonnaise sauce from this with egg yolk, lemon juice, mustard and Worcestershire sauce
I got the recipe from here, in French
https://www.atoute.org/n/Recette-de-la-sauce-entrecote.html
ETA this is the recipe for sauce for 6 people. I'm going to put two thirds of what I've cooked into a jar for the next two times and only make a bit too much sauce for tonight's steak and chips
Jenrick resigns. And people claim that it is Starmer that is the lucky general? Sunak will wipe more intellect off the bottom of his shoes. Good rid.
I’m not sure the no dependents rule will survive though. It’s going to put off a large proportion of health and care workers from coming, so unless they either discover a magical productivity solution, or unaffordable pay surge, I reckon they’ll need to reverse it.
Calling an early general election he likely loses heavily anyway even if it saves a handful of Tory seats is not worth it for him unless polls show he has a real chance to win it
There has been certain pleasure for those of us on the left to take from ridiculing the gross ineptitude of the government since 2010 but I would give it up in a flash for 13 years of competent government under anyone-but-the-Tories.
Of course, many of you natural PB-Conservatives have (rightly) long ago given up on this current shambles so you've already had plenty of experience of government bashing, but it can't be quite as enjoyable when you're bashing what is supposed to be your own side, that you voted for.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
It never ceases to amaze me just how amazing a composer he his. Nails it. Hit after hit. Beautiful orchestral pieces that perfectly capture the mood of the movie. For over five decades. And he's still going at 92.
Raiders March at the moment. Still fantastic. He's a genius.
And guess what, Labour's small boat policy is to negotiate returns agreements with EU countries. It's not rocket science.
But instead the Tories have gone down a Rwanda blind alley.
They also will have to face heat for various things going badly that are the result of actions already taken (or out of government control entirely), so it all evens out. They should get at least an entire term of blaming bad things on the last government and the good things as all down to them.
The fortunate government gets 2 whole terms to play that card.
'Partners' has a very broad meaning in Toryese.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Incompetent immoral Tory morons
Out of office, his interventions don’t have to make any more sense than Sunak’s nonsense, as they’ll never encounter reality.
I do hope the Tories can fit in another leadership election before the general election, not because I believe it to be a good idea, but I am curious about just how low the Tory vote can plummet.
EU countries: no.
Not only the tories down a blind alley.
Plus, while Brown did lose he was not that far away from a chance of holding on to power, which after 13 years in power is not a terrible outcome.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Like Clause 4, but madder.
Seriously, any new Government will be able to get away with blaming its predecessors for a while. The Blair/Brown Governments get plenty of blame on here for what's happened with the country and they were a long time ago.
The truth is the Conservative Party has led the Government of this country for thirteen and a half years - that's time to make progress on even the most intractable issues and yet here we are...with Conservative supporters getting ready to blame the next Government.
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
When I buy a "pierce the lid in several places and microwave for 5 minutes" meal, there will be half the container for curry and the other half for rice. At a takeaway you get a container of each , i.e. twice the amount.
Rwanda: Fine, send the money to this account...
Rwanda (aside): No f*cking chance they'll ever send us a single person. Ahahaha...
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.