Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Actual pew research by Pew Research – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited May 12 in General
Actual pew research by Pew Research – politicalbetting.com

How many people go to church weekly?Surveys say it's about 1 in 5 Americans. Cell phone tracker data say it's actually closer to 1 in 20 Americans. Fascinating new working paper!https://t.co/T7Hh4Ucj1w pic.twitter.com/pLmlVe1J6V

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Totally off topic:

    One of my little obsessions is mechanical keyboards, and specifically low profile mechanical keyboards. And I've just got a new one, and it is absolutely fantastic. It's called the Lofree Flow. And it is *incredibly* nice to type on. While being compact. Highly recommended for anyone who spends their entire day typing.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,167
    I guess they had to crunch through a mass of data to get to this conclusion.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    Nobody seems to be commenting on the attendance figure for DC ...
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,472

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    How does Mr Holbein make graph 2 - around 45 million - to be "closer to 1 in 20" than "1 in 5" from a population of 333 million?

    45/333 is between 1 in 8 and 1 in 7.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    MattW said:

    How does Mr Holbein make graph 2 - around 45 million - to be "closer to 1 in 20" than "1 in 5" from a population of 333 million?

    45/333 is between 1 in 8 and 1 in 7.

    Adult population?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,948
    "A UK parliamentary researcher and another man have been charged with spying for China after allegedly providing information which could be "useful to an enemy".

    Christopher Cash, 29, the researcher, and Christopher Berry, 32, were charged under the Official Secrets Act.

    They are accused of giving "articles, notes, documents or information" to a foreign state, the Met Police said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68874822
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Totally off topic:

    One of my little obsessions is mechanical keyboards, and specifically low profile mechanical keyboards. And I've just got a new one, and it is absolutely fantastic. It's called the Lofree Flow. And it is *incredibly* nice to type on. While being compact. Highly recommended for anyone who spends their entire day typing.

    There isn’t an ISO international version yet so I’ll wait and stick to the ducky ones I currently have
  • eekeek Posts: 28,586

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    2% in both cases is margin of error changes based on the people polled that week
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,948
    edited April 22
    Labour 43% (-1)
    Conservative 20% (-2)
    Reform 14% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 12% (+3)
    Green 6% (–)
    SNP 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Redfield / Wilton
    Changes +/- 14 April


    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    RFM: 12% (+1)
    LDM: 9% (=)
    GRN: 5% (=)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Via @deltapolluk, 19-22 Apr.
    Changes w/ 12-15 Apr.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,177
    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    edited April 22

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Oh, if the Rwandan government agreed to take - say - 15,000 to 25,000 a year, that would mean that someone crossing the channel on a boat would have a one-in-four chance of being sent there, then it would have a significant impact on numbers.

    But the Rwandans haven't signed up for that. According to Migration Observatory, which is pretty reliable, they've agreed to take a couple of hundred.

    So, we're talking about a would be asylum seeker having a one in 400 chance of going there? If that. Would that really move the needle?

    And this is why it doesn't look like a serious policy.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    edited April 22

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    We’re starting to get a few big gaps between pollsters on bloc percentages rather than just allocation of votes within blocs.

    This one (Deltapoll) has a combined Refcon score of 39%. That’s on the way to being respectable and the highest I’ve seen for a long time. But the R&W score is 34%, one of the lowest in what’s been a fairly stable picture.

    LLG in those two are 57% and 61%.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    For all her faults, US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Toxic Cracker Barrel, GA) is WAY higher on the moral-ethical scale than her congressional GOP colleague, Victoria Spartz (R-Spinning Windmill, IN).

    Check out so-called congressional record of VS, for example:

    > 2022 - Spartz called the . . . Russian invasion of Ukraine "a genocide of the Ukrainian people by a crazy man". Spartz was one of the first US officials to call Russian actions "war crimes". At the time of the invasion, Spartz had family still living in Ukraine, including her grandmother, who was living in Chernihiv, which was under siege by Russia.

    > 2024 > Spartz voted against a crucial $60 billion aid package for Ukraine[66], shortly after being accused by a primary challenger of prioritizing aid to Ukraine over domestic Republican priorities including the border wall.[67] Her vote against the U.S. aid for Ukraine came just three days after a Russian missile strike on Chernihiv, where her family [once] lived, killed 18 civilians and injured 78

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Spartz
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    I did think about it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,177
    rcs1000 said:

    Totally off topic:

    One of my little obsessions is mechanical keyboards, and specifically low profile mechanical keyboards. And I've just got a new one, and it is absolutely fantastic. It's called the Lofree Flow. And it is *incredibly* nice to type on. While being compact. Highly recommended for anyone who spends their entire day typing.

    If you think you're *obsessed* with input devices, and their mechanicals, read this thread.
    The laser etching trick is seriously good.

    https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1781674872344809939
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    eek said:

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    2% in both cases is margin of error changes based on the people polled that week
    Statistics fans can explain.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,121
    Hammering the disabled and their exhausted GPs seems to have done the trick for Sunak.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    He’s a great leader who would win a stonking majority on those numbers? Or am I missing something?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0

    Do NOT be shocked WHEN next lawyers popping up in court(s) representing Donald Trump, are sporting Brit accents.

    OR when Kemi Badenoch appears as warm-up act for Donald Trump at some MAGA-maniac jamboree.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    I think this is because under the Australia system Britain would still have to take lots of refugees, because there are genuinely large numbers of people who qualify as refugees under the definition currently being applied.

    The fantasy being sold with the Rwanda plan is zero refugees, or at least zero + token numbers taken with great fanfare so Britain can feel good about itself.

    Given that the plan started with Johnson, the fantasy plan was always going to be more attractive than a realistic one.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449
    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Or the Trumptonshire Fire Brigade?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    I did think about it.
    Or Trumpton even (nearly): "Pew, Pew, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grubb."
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Or the Trumptonshire Fire Brigade?
    You beat me to it.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Oh, if the Rwandan government agreed to take - say - 15,000 to 25,000 a year, that would mean that someone crossing the channel on a boat would have a one-in-four chance of being sent there, then it would have a significant impact on numbers.

    But the Rwandans haven't signed up for that. According to Migration Observatory, which is pretty reliable, they've agreed to take a couple of hundred.

    So, we're talking about a would be asylum seeker having a one in 400 chance of going there? If that. Would that really move the needle?

    And this is why it doesn't look like a serious policy.
    Thinking through the timings here: presumably if the Rwanda bill finally goes through, any arrivals and claims that predate it will be grandfathered.

    So the clock starts ticking on day 1 of the new regime. Say that’s next week. Someone arrives and gets taken to hospital / reception centre. Someone needs to establish who they are or claim to be and if they’re claiming asylum or just a French citizen who got lost on a sailing trip or a bog standard illegal migrant with no asylum claim who would not be in the scope of Rwanda. They presumably also need to check the individual is of sound mind, fit to travel, not carrying a communicable disease, not a wanted criminal, not a minor (what’s the cutoff age?)

    If they are an asylum seeker then the lawyers get involved. And there will need to be sufficient home office staff assigned who aren’t already busy with the pre-Rwanda backlog. Only after that - and the legal process will be slower for the first few because it’s new - can the admin and paperwork start, the flight scheduling, accommodation sorted etc etc.

    I can’t realistically see flights taking off with freshly minted new Rwanda transferees for several months at best. Surely not before an election.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    At this very moment, a copy of Iain Dale's latest publication is being rushed (sorta) toward my humble abode.

    Namely "British General Election Campaigns, 1830 - 2019" which consists of essays by various authors on each of the 50 GEs covered.

    Reviews are rather mixed (some essays better than others, and lack of central theme being main objections). However, yours truly is looking forward to this timely work . . . warts & all.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Or the Trumptonshire Fire Brigade?
    You beat me to it.
    It was a good one.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    So todays Polls have shown Lab lead down 3 points (+1-4 =-3)

    SKS fans please explain
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    edited April 22

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    There was a fairly balanced article in CityAM on this today by a Jewish writer.

    The individual is a representative of a campaigning group and a history of active intervention like this - kind of equivalent to a Peter Tatchell figure.

    He was definitely looking for an “incident” actively and looking to film it. But the police then walked right into his trap in a remarkably cackhanded way.

    Having seen more of the video and the context I’ve changed my mind on the police behaviour. It was incompetence rather than anything akin to taking sides.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Or the Trumptonshire Fire Brigade?
    Yay. An opportunity to repost the best video of last year, courtesy of the Buckfastleigh fire brigade.

    https://twitter.com/DSFireUpdates/status/1628394515563270146?lang=en-GB

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,108

    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0

    The PO management lied and suppressed evidence to an inquiry?

    I’m not shocked.

    I would have been shocked if they had been honest and truthful.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    So todays Polls have shown Lab lead down 3 points (+1-4 =-3)

    SKS fans please explain
    I shall do a thread header on margin of error.

    RIght now you're like a Scot Nat using a subsample of 9 people in Inverkeithing as proof that there's proof of a 20% swing to the SNP.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,990
    A comment on the header....you look at my cell phone data you would imagine I dont move more than a 5 foot radius. My mobile stays on my desk, I leave the house it doesn't travel with me. I don't imagine I am the only one that isn't concerned enough to take a mobile everywhere they go
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Oh, if the Rwandan government agreed to take - say - 15,000 to 25,000 a year, that would mean that someone crossing the channel on a boat would have a one-in-four chance of being sent there, then it would have a significant impact on numbers.

    But the Rwandans haven't signed up for that. According to Migration Observatory, which is pretty reliable, they've agreed to take a couple of hundred.

    So, we're talking about a would be asylum seeker having a one in 400 chance of going there? If that. Would that really move the needle?

    And this is why it doesn't look like a serious policy.
    That assumes both that those taken to Rwanda will stay there, and that those currently making the journey will carry on coming in the same numbers.

    Of the migrants interviewed as part of a vox pop I saw today, one said if he gets taken to Rwanda he will just journey to the UK again, another said his country of origin was right next to Rwanda (so why would he not just go home), another seemed understandably distressed at the possibility of being sent there. They won't stay in Rwanda.

    I also think they won't continue to come in the same numbers if enough are sent to Rwanda. So that throws those numbers out totally.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    So todays Polls have shown Lab lead down 3 points (+1-4 =-3)

    SKS fans please explain
    ToryJohnOwls
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,319

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    So you haven't read Lady Chatterly's Lover?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    TimS said:

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    We’re starting to get a few big gaps between pollsters on bloc percentages rather than just allocation of votes within blocs.

    This one (Deltapoll) has a combined Refcon score of 39%. That’s on the way to being respectable and the highest I’ve seen for a long time. But the R&W score is 34%, one of the lowest in what’s been a fairly stable picture.

    LLG in those two are 57% and 61%.
    There is no G in LLG

    G voters wouldnt touch SKS with a barge pole or should that be poll!

    And unlike in the past Greens are standing in every seat in GE2024
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    So todays Polls have shown Lab lead down 3 points (+1-4 =-3)

    SKS fans please explain
    I shall do a thread header on margin of error.

    RIght now you're like a Scot Nat using a subsample of 9 people in Inverkeithing as proof that there's proof of a 20% swing to the SNP.
    @StuartDickson ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 22

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    So you haven't read Lady Chatterly's Lover?
    I wouldn't read such filth, I am a pious Muslim.

    I have watched the Lady Chatterley's tv show featuring Sean Bean though.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Carnyx said:

    Nobody seems to be commenting on the attendance figure for DC ...

    I will. To say that, my own quasi-educated guess, is that the high church attendance rate for District of Columbia, is result of higher level of actual church-going among African Americans AND Latinos,

    With same logic applying to Maryland & New York (just above thin light-blue line) and to Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi & Oklahoma (just above line) adding Native Americans to the mix in OK.

    Utah is it's own Private Idaho (along with actual southern ID) due to Church Formerly Called Mormon.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,417

    At this very moment, a copy of Iain Dale's latest publication is being rushed (sorta) toward my humble abode.

    Namely "British General Election Campaigns, 1830 - 2019" which consists of essays by various authors on each of the 50 GEs covered.

    Reviews are rather mixed (some essays better than others, and lack of central theme being main objections). However, yours truly is looking forward to this timely work . . . warts & all.

    Do you trust the judgement of a man who paid a whole £1,500 to Liz Truss as an advance for her new book? That's £30 a day!
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,736

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Rwanda being worse than useless though as it's taken up an vast amount of time, taxpayers' money and effort on a scheme that even the most optimistic, 'all runs smoothly' projections peg as making the tiniest dent on the problem it's supposed to solve, and even then one that contradicts itself.

    Rwanda will become a byword for disastrous, self-destructive policymaking. Which is better than being one for a genocide I suppose.

    Sunak failing to scrap it on day one was arguably the first sign he was doomed.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    TimS said:

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    We’re starting to get a few big gaps between pollsters on bloc percentages rather than just allocation of votes within blocs.

    This one (Deltapoll) has a combined Refcon score of 39%. That’s on the way to being respectable and the highest I’ve seen for a long time. But the R&W score is 34%, one of the lowest in what’s been a fairly stable picture.

    LLG in those two are 57% and 61%.
    There is no G in LLG

    G voters wouldnt touch SKS with a barge pole or should that be poll!

    And unlike in the past Greens are standing in every seat in GE2024
    Vote Green, get Sunak :lol:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0

    The PO management lied and suppressed evidence to an inquiry?

    I’m not shocked.

    I would have been shocked if they had been honest and truthful.
    I was channelling my inner Inspector Renault.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    So you haven't read Lady Chatterly's Lover?
    I wouldn't read such filth, I am a pious Muslim.

    I have watched the Lady Chatterley's tv show featuring Sean Bean though.
    Joely Richardson :blush:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    I think this is because under the Australia system Britain would still have to take lots of refugees, because there are genuinely large numbers of people who qualify as refugees under the definition currently being applied.

    The fantasy being sold with the Rwanda plan is zero refugees, or at least zero + token numbers taken with great fanfare so Britain can feel good about itself.

    Given that the plan started with Johnson, the fantasy plan was always going to be more attractive than a realistic one.
    Can anyone explain why in France about 20-30% claims are valid whilst we have 70-80% valid and don't chuck anyone out. It si all the same punters.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    So todays Polls have shown Lab lead down 3 points (+1-4 =-3)

    SKS fans please explain
    I shall do a thread header on margin of error.

    RIght now you're like a Scot Nat using a subsample of 9 people in Inverkeithing as proof that there's proof of a 20% swing to the SNP.
    Meanwhile Heathener is patiently waiting for 5 successive over 20 leads on UK Polling Wiki so he can post about the "Trend"
  • WaterfallWaterfall Posts: 96

    Hammering the disabled and their exhausted GPs seems to have done the trick for Sunak.

    Yes sadly there are some amongst us who get quite excited at the thought of cruelty to the disabled.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    It is coming to it when you cannot walk down the street just because the police are scared some muslim protestors don't like the look of you. Country is well and truly fecked.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    I see If you look closely you can see Gideon Falter is sitting atop the SKS hierarchy of racism, along with Akehurst.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    malcolmg said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    I think this is because under the Australia system Britain would still have to take lots of refugees, because there are genuinely large numbers of people who qualify as refugees under the definition currently being applied.

    The fantasy being sold with the Rwanda plan is zero refugees, or at least zero + token numbers taken with great fanfare so Britain can feel good about itself.

    Given that the plan started with Johnson, the fantasy plan was always going to be more attractive than a realistic one.
    Can anyone explain why in France about 20-30% claims are valid whilst we have 70-80% valid and don't chuck anyone out. It si all the same punters.
    Apart from the Home Office being a bunch of work-shy gobshites who seem to exist purely to thwart Government policy you mean?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Oh, if the Rwandan government agreed to take - say - 15,000 to 25,000 a year, that would mean that someone crossing the channel on a boat would have a one-in-four chance of being sent there, then it would have a significant impact on numbers.

    But the Rwandans haven't signed up for that. According to Migration Observatory, which is pretty reliable, they've agreed to take a couple of hundred.

    So, we're talking about a would be asylum seeker having a one in 400 chance of going there? If that. Would that really move the needle?

    And this is why it doesn't look like a serious policy.
    Thinking through the timings here: presumably if the Rwanda bill finally goes through, any arrivals and claims that predate it will be grandfathered.

    So the clock starts ticking on day 1 of the new regime. Say that’s next week. Someone arrives and gets taken to hospital / reception centre. Someone needs to establish who they are or claim to be and if they’re claiming asylum or just a French citizen who got lost on a sailing trip or a bog standard illegal migrant with no asylum claim who would not be in the scope of Rwanda. They presumably also need to check the individual is of sound mind, fit to travel, not carrying a communicable disease, not a wanted criminal, not a minor (what’s the cutoff age?)

    If they are an asylum seeker then the lawyers get involved. And there will need to be sufficient home office staff assigned who aren’t already busy with the pre-Rwanda backlog. Only after that - and the legal process will be slower for the first few because it’s new - can the admin and paperwork start, the flight scheduling, accommodation sorted etc etc.

    I can’t realistically see flights taking off with freshly minted new Rwanda transferees for several months at best. Surely not before an election.
    You can guarantee some poor sods will be in there as soon as possible.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Re: man arrested for looking "obviously Jewish" just ran across a case (mention in biography of Fiorello La Guardia) from 1940 in New York City.

    There was a rally in NYC by "Christian Nationalist" who were overtly, rabidly anti-Semitic.

    When one speaker proclaimed, "the only good Jew is a dead Jew!" a passerby shouted back, "I'm a good Jew and I'm alive!"

    So NYC cops arrested HIM, on grounds of creating a public disturbance or disturbing the peace or somesuch.

    Caused considerable adverse comment, and political hassle for Mayor La Guardia, who was famously anti-Nazi and pro-Jewish. Indeed FLaG he WAS Jewish, on his mother's side, but did NOT publicize the fact. Though he (also famously) did offer to debate at least one Jewish opponent in Yiddish, which he spoke but the other fellow did NOT.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited April 22

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    ...asks a working-class Northern boy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Presumably being saved up for May 4th.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    That is true but such people are almost certain to follow through

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    ...asks a working-class Northern boy.
    I am

    1) A Northerner

    2) Work

    3) I have a class

    Ah I see your point.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Presumably being saved up for May 4th.
    May 2nd - Local/Mayoral election

    May 3rd to 6th - Romantic getaway

    You know the joke about when Mike went on holiday...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    malcolmg said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    I think this is because under the Australia system Britain would still have to take lots of refugees, because there are genuinely large numbers of people who qualify as refugees under the definition currently being applied.

    The fantasy being sold with the Rwanda plan is zero refugees, or at least zero + token numbers taken with great fanfare so Britain can feel good about itself.

    Given that the plan started with Johnson, the fantasy plan was always going to be more attractive than a realistic one.
    Can anyone explain why in France about 20-30% claims are valid whilst we have 70-80% valid and don't chuck anyone out. It si all the same punters.
    France gets a lot more applicants than Britain. It's possible that it's not all the same punters, and that genuine refugees are more likely to make the greater effort to reach Britain. But I'm speculating, I don't know.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited April 22
    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    It is coming to it when you cannot walk down the street just because the police are scared some muslim protestors don't like the look of you. Country is well and truly fecked.
    The right wing Zionist grifter (who makes money from selling stolen land to settlers) has walked down the street next to peace marches and crossed more roads than the fookin green cross code man in the past few months

    And these Muslims you talk about were joined by thousands of Jews, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists and peace activists but not many crinkly Scottish racists.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    Few would disagree I think. However, Rwanda is what we have, so Rwanda it must be. I don't imagine for a second that anyone will be staying in Rwanda for any length of time, so the volume will be a problem that solves itself.
    Oh, if the Rwandan government agreed to take - say - 15,000 to 25,000 a year, that would mean that someone crossing the channel on a boat would have a one-in-four chance of being sent there, then it would have a significant impact on numbers.

    But the Rwandans haven't signed up for that. According to Migration Observatory, which is pretty reliable, they've agreed to take a couple of hundred.

    So, we're talking about a would be asylum seeker having a one in 400 chance of going there? If that. Would that really move the needle?

    And this is why it doesn't look like a serious policy.
    That assumes both that those taken to Rwanda will stay there, and that those currently making the journey will carry on coming in the same numbers.

    Of the migrants interviewed as part of a vox pop I saw today, one said if he gets taken to Rwanda he will just journey to the UK again, another said his country of origin was right next to Rwanda (so why would he not just go home), another seemed understandably distressed at the possibility of being sent there. They won't stay in Rwanda.

    I also think they won't continue to come in the same numbers if enough are sent to Rwanda. So that throws those numbers out totally.

    There are practical problems in Rwanda, which I have not yet seen commented on much.

    Rwanda is smaller than Wales + Cumbria, already has a population of 14 million after 1 million had been murdered in the 1990s, therefore has the 5th highest population density in the world, has a per capita GDP of £2500, and is significantly fairly full of mountains.

    There is no way they can absorb very large numbers.

    Sunak is nuts.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    I've had that experience, most memorably in 2009 when I decided to spend a weekend in Manchester city centre the same weekend the EDL decided to have a protest in Piccadilly Gardens.

    Never have I more regretted buying/wearing genuine Burberry products.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    I think this is because under the Australia system Britain would still have to take lots of refugees, because there are genuinely large numbers of people who qualify as refugees under the definition currently being applied.

    The fantasy being sold with the Rwanda plan is zero refugees, or at least zero + token numbers taken with great fanfare so Britain can feel good about itself.

    Given that the plan started with Johnson, the fantasy plan was always going to be more attractive than a realistic one.
    Can anyone explain why in France about 20-30% claims are valid whilst we have 70-80% valid and don't chuck anyone out. It si all the same punters.
    France gets a lot more applicants than Britain. It's possible that it's not all the same punters, and that genuine refugees are more likely to make the greater effort to reach Britain. But I'm speculating, I don't know.
    Seems odd given it is supposed to be the same great International laws everybody keeps spouting about. More likely the usual UK incompetence.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Presumably being saved up for May 4th.
    "Hey, Luke. May the 4th be with you!"
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,240
    edited April 22
    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I'd say Sunak needs 10 planes full of boat people to fly to Rwanda in quick succession, to break the boats. I could be very wrong - it will become apparent very quickly if I am.

    If he manages this, it will be a major feat, and he's right to try and get his name all over it before it happens. Also a very clear dividing line with Labour, whose shitty non-policy on this involves chucking even more money at the French, and quite possibly signing us up to agreements to take more asylum seekers from the EU.

    The current backlog is 80,777. An A320 can usually take 160 people. You would need 505 planes full of boat people to clear the backlog.

    How many would you need to sufficient break the incentive for people to come to the UK on small boats? I don't know. I expect many over a long period.
    I don't think one needs to clear the backlog, just send all the newcomers to Rwanda.
    I'm not entirely clear, but my understanding is that most of the backlog are in legal limbo. The Govt has passed a law meaning they can't be processed here. So, don't we have to send them to Rwanda or forever pay for their upkeep? (Or, obviously, vote out this terrible government.)
    I'm sure that's correct, but it's far more important to get the current arrivals there, in terms of the disincentive factor. Once it has been firmly established that a trip across the channel is a one-way ticket to Rwanda, new arrivals will stop, and the backlog can be dealt with.
    And that's the tell that this is not a serious policy.

    If you want to establish that, the UK government needs a scheme with massive surge capacity- initially several thousand a week for several weeks and the ability to still say "there's plenty of room for more".

    They haven't done that, and everyone knows it.

    The kindest interpretation is that a talking point got taken too seriously, and everyone is now stuck with it because it's just too embarassing to say out loud that the scheme is batshit. (Did James Cleverley ever actually deny saying that?) Think Emperor's New Clothes.

    Otherwise, we're left with an expensive performance... of what?

    In terms of tonight, I think the nuclear option for the Lords is to say "You can have your bill, provided you accept our two amendments. One on Afghan interpreters and the other on independent monitoring of Rwanda's ongoing safety."

    Thus far, Rishi has stood against those amendments. If the Lords do go that way, what should Rishi do? And what should the Lords do?
    There's also a fundamental difference between the UK scheme, and the way every other country in the world does it.

    Look at Australia. If you arrive there by boat, they send you off to an off-shore processing facility. If your application is successful, you come to Australia. If it is unsuccessful, you are shipped back to your country of origin.

    The UK's Rwanda scheme is completely different. People are being sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. The Rwandan government recieves money from the UK, but it is the job of the Rwandan government to process refugees, to house them if their applications are successful, and to deport them if they are not.

    This rather limits the appetite of the Rwandans for more than a small number of refugees. (Let us not forget that Kgali has about a tenth the population of London.) And it increases the likelihood of successful appeals against deportation to Rwanda.

    I don't understand why the UK is not implementing an Australian-type process. Sure, it would cost more to implement. But those people being processed would remain the responsibility of the UK, which would mean that it was significantly easier to implement, that it could scale properly, and that the likelihood of successful judicial appeals would be close to zero.
    My strong suspicion the reason why they don't send asylum seekers to Rwanda for UK processing is that the vast majority of these will be assessed as genuine. Which doesn't mean necessarily that everyone crossing the Channel has a valid claim, but most of those claiming asylum will only do so if they think they will be successful. Otherwise they are better taking their chances disappearing into the black economy. The only purpose of Rwanda is to discourage the genuine asylum seeker in this case. The others won't end up in Rwanda anyway.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pew pew... where are the Star Wars jokes in the header ?

    Missed opportunity.

    Presumably being saved up for May 4th.
    May 2nd - Local/Mayoral election

    May 3rd to 6th - Romantic getaway

    You know the joke about when Mike went on holiday...
    Romantic getaway?

    Congrats TSE
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited April 22

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    That is true but such people are almost certain to follow through

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    ...asks a working-class Northern boy.
    I am

    1) A Northerner

    2) Work

    3) I have a class

    Ah I see your point.
    Regardless, 'prolier than thou' was still a great line.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    Malc, it’s the equivalent of a Celtic supporter, in full gear, trying to cross a queue of Rangers supporters.
    Or, to be fair, the opposite.
    One OUGHT to be able to do it.
    BUT!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    At this very moment, a copy of Iain Dale's latest publication is being rushed (sorta) toward my humble abode.

    Namely "British General Election Campaigns, 1830 - 2019" which consists of essays by various authors on each of the 50 GEs covered.

    Reviews are rather mixed (some essays better than others, and lack of central theme being main objections). However, yours truly is looking forward to this timely work . . . warts & all.

    Do you trust the judgement of a man who paid a whole £1,500 to Liz Truss as an advance for her new book? That's £30 a day!
    Strangely, publishing advances are generally based on projections of books to be sold (all the way down to the remainder bin) and NOT time served by the author.

    Have personally met Iain Dale, who indeed had enough lack-of-judgement, to give yours truly the time of day!

    Also advised him to visit Wilmington, Delaware during Joe Biden's last US Senate campaign.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    TimS said:

    We have a Poll requiring explanation from SKS fans


    Labour lead at 16pts
    Westminster voting intention

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    REF: 12% (+1)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)

    via
    @DeltapollUK
    , 19 Apr

    Labour lead in today's R&W poll is 23 (Lab 43, Con 20).

    SKS enemies please explain.
    We’re starting to get a few big gaps between pollsters on bloc percentages rather than just allocation of votes within blocs.

    This one (Deltapoll) has a combined Refcon score of 39%. That’s on the way to being respectable and the highest I’ve seen for a long time. But the R&W score is 34%, one of the lowest in what’s been a fairly stable picture.

    LLG in those two are 57% and 61%.
    There is no G in LLG

    G voters wouldnt touch SKS with a barge pole or should that be poll!

    And unlike in the past Greens are standing in every seat in GE2024
    How the f**k would you know? Based on your posts after Rochdale you're a Workers Party of Britain supporter. You're no Green.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    That is true but such people are almost certain to follow through

    "...some people pretend to be prolier than thou"

    Brilliant line! Probably bollocks but brilliant nonetheless.

    It's true, there are some upper middle class people who try and pass themselves of as working class.

    Why would anybody want to be a prole?
    ...asks a working-class Northern boy.
    I am

    1) A Northerner

    2) Work

    3) I have a class

    Ah I see your point.
    Regardless, 'prolier than thou' was still a great line.
    "We are considerably prolier than you!"
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,778
    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    Funny how people screaming about anti-semitism don't see anything wrong at all with calling Muslims "nutjobs".

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821

    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0

    Do NOT be shocked WHEN next lawyers popping up in court(s) representing Donald Trump, are sporting Brit accents.

    OR when Kemi Badenoch appears as warm-up act for Donald Trump at some MAGA-maniac jamboree.
    I actually think that Donald Trump might do a bit better with a UK firm of solicitors. He does seem to select some remarkably incompetent lawyers. British ones would be amoral and start with the handicap of their accents and accidentally calling the judge 'M'Ludd', but they couldn't be much worse.

    Reminds me of a Kavanagh QC episode where he went to Florida.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UGHwqOssQU
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,122
    Pagan2 said:

    A comment on the header....you look at my cell phone data you would imagine I dont move more than a 5 foot radius. My mobile stays on my desk, I leave the house it doesn't travel with me. I don't imagine I am the only one that isn't concerned enough to take a mobile everywhere they go

    I take my mobile to Church, but switch it off. How would this show in the data?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    edited April 22
    On topic for PB.

    Observation from an online Green Councillor friend in Oxford, to whom I have just been explaining the joys of Ashfield local politics.

    Oh my this sounds like an extremely eventful constituency!

    An additional interesting thing for us is that Conservatives, you know, the National party of govt still, haven’t stood this time in several wards (and didn’t stand against me).

    https://twitter.com/EmilyKerr36/status/1782089214147928248

    Are Conservative Councillor Candidate numbers holding up everywhere, the world wonders?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A comment on the header....you look at my cell phone data you would imagine I dont move more than a 5 foot radius. My mobile stays on my desk, I leave the house it doesn't travel with me. I don't imagine I am the only one that isn't concerned enough to take a mobile everywhere they go

    I take my mobile to Church, but switch it off. How would this show in the data?
    The Lord moveth in mysterious ways...
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    I am shocked!

    Post Office scandal: Investigation that cleared CEO ‘ignored key witnesses’

    Nick Read was cleared of misconduct after whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director


    An investigation into the Post Office chief executive did not interview the complainant’s key witnesses and kept her in the dark, MPs have been told.

    Last week Nick Read, who has run the company since 2019, was exonerated of a “myriad charge sheet” set out in a whistleblowing complaint by Jane Davies, the company’s former HR director.

    The existence of the investigation into Read was made public earlier in February by the organisation’s former chairman, Henry Staunton, who was sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, in January.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-investigation-witnesses-pn5h5vmx0

    Do NOT be shocked WHEN next lawyers popping up in court(s) representing Donald Trump, are sporting Brit accents.

    OR when Kemi Badenoch appears as warm-up act for Donald Trump at some MAGA-maniac jamboree.
    I actually think that Donald Trump might do a bit better with a UK firm of solicitors. He does seem to select some remarkably incompetent lawyers. British ones would be amoral and start with the handicap of their accents and accidentally calling the judge 'M'Ludd', but they couldn't be much worse.

    Reminds me of a Kavanagh QC episode where he went to Florida.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UGHwqOssQU
    British accent is NOT a handicap in the United States.

    As for calling the judge "M'Ludd" most American judges and juries would like it . . . but would be disappointed IF the Brit law-botherer was NOT sporting a funny wig a la "Rumpole of the Bailey" (which was a HUGE hit on PBS back in the day).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    I never take my phone to church, for starters using it in the services is rather rude, a bit like doing so in a play or a cinema or concert. So am not sure this tells us much
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    Pagan2 said:

    A comment on the header....you look at my cell phone data you would imagine I dont move more than a 5 foot radius. My mobile stays on my desk, I leave the house it doesn't travel with me. I don't imagine I am the only one that isn't concerned enough to take a mobile everywhere they go

    You do seem to be missing the point about mobile phones.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    Malc, it’s the equivalent of a Celtic supporter, in full gear, trying to cross a queue of Rangers supporters.
    Or, to be fair, the opposite.
    One OUGHT to be able to do it.
    BUT!
    Agree , but police need to sort that type of stuff out. Allowing these mobs to rule the streets every week is not on.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,122
    HYUFD said:

    I never take my phone to church, for starters using it in the services is rather rude, a bit like doing so in a play or a cinema or concert. So am not sure this tells us much

    The final tweet in the header shows that the majority of Church goers take their cellphones. It doesn't ask if they are powered on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Andy_JS said:

    Labour 43% (-1)
    Conservative 20% (-2)
    Reform 14% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 12% (+3)
    Green 6% (–)
    SNP 3% (–)
    Other 1% (–)

    Redfield / Wilton
    Changes +/- 14 April


    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 27% (+2)
    RFM: 12% (+1)
    LDM: 9% (=)
    GRN: 5% (=)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Via @deltapolluk, 19-22 Apr.
    Changes w/ 12-15 Apr.

    Labour at 1997 levels, the LDs barely half 1997 levels though.

    Reform at 4 times what UKIP and the Referendum party got then, so if Sunak can squeeze them by polling day he should at least make it closer than Major managed in 1997. Even if Starmer matches Blair's score
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    How hard is it to pass a simple law saying that mental health issues should not prevent the deportation of criminals?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13335685/Child-rapist-jailed-attacking-teenage-girl-allowed-stay-UK-arguing-deported-Eritrea-harm-mental-health.html
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,986
    Evening all :)

    Not for the first time, Redfield & Wilton and Deltapoll go in completely different directions on a Monday evening.

    Deltapoll's numbers are almost identical to those of We Think and 27% is a common upper plateau for the Conservatives from this pollster. The changes are all within margin of error. R&W is equally consistent having the Conservatives in the 20-24% range since mid January.

    Perhaps instrad of the "usual" version of the bloc voters, we should try CON/LD/Ref and Green vs Labour. With R&W it's 52-43, with Deltapoll it's 53-43 so the anti-Labour id swirling round the four main alternatives.

    In 2019, the numbers were 62-33 so it's a straight line 10% swing however you want to dress it up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,122
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    Malc, it’s the equivalent of a Celtic supporter, in full gear, trying to cross a queue of Rangers supporters.
    Or, to be fair, the opposite.
    One OUGHT to be able to do it.
    BUT!
    Agree , but police need to sort that type of stuff out. Allowing these mobs to rule the streets every week is not on.
    But the protests are not mobs, and also include some Jews. There seem to be very few arrests, and no descriptions of attacks on these Jews supporting the protest.

    Not my cup of tea, but the right to peaceful protest and assembly should be core British freedoms.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,990
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A comment on the header....you look at my cell phone data you would imagine I dont move more than a 5 foot radius. My mobile stays on my desk, I leave the house it doesn't travel with me. I don't imagine I am the only one that isn't concerned enough to take a mobile everywhere they go

    I take my mobile to Church, but switch it off. How would this show in the data?
    A switched off cellphone is only switched off for certain definitions of off
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Chris said:

    malcolmg said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Far-right Zionist agitator, Gideon Falter is a Vice-Chair at the JNF (illegal settlement funders)

    Why are mainstream media not mentioning this?

    Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact he was asked to move on for looking “too Jewish”. Unless you think the plod in question researched his background before being the sort of antisemitic knob that your post impliedly defends on the occasion in question. Hope that helps your understanding in this.
    Does suggest he didn’t haven’t completely clean hands.
    Do behave. Much as I disagree with his political position, he was asked to move on because of his appearance, not his views.
    Sorry, but AiUI he was trying to cross a road where Palestinian sympathisers were marching. Wearing a kippah.
    However the policeman wasn’t the sharpest knife in the box.
    Sad day when you cannot cross the road because some nutjobs don't like the look of you.
    Funny how people screaming about anti-semitism don't see anything wrong at all with calling Muslims "nutjobs".

    Well I am not screaming about anti-semitism , I said stopping people cross the street Dumbo. For me if they are so bad people cannot cross the street then they are at best nutjobs.
    Only a moron could could imagine people = anti-semitism, so go F**k yourself Your assumption that everyone there is a muslim confirms you are a real nutjob and extremely one sided.
This discussion has been closed.