What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere. 2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
This is exactly the way we should be doing things.
Err, no it isn't. You're quite a economically and constitutionally right-wing English nationalist who ameliorates this by having a totally open flank on migration and asylum, no doubt partly influenced by some political "heritage" in your extended family and the need to define yourself against that.
Fair enough. I'd feel conflicted by that too. But that's no reason to listen seriously to you on this subject, in the same way I don't for Simon Jenkins on defence or foreign policy - but do on many other matters.
I would suggest that I should be taken more seriously than you on this topic if only because I am actually backed up by our treaty obligations whereas you are quite content to trash them and suffer the consequences.
I also have the basic intellect (it doesn't actually take much) to find it somewhat perverse to pass a law declaring a country safe that has, in my adult lifetime, suffered one of the worst genocides in modern history.
I think it’s better to point out that current threats to safety in Rwanda, e.g. spillover from the fighting in DRC, rather than referring back 30 years ago to the genocide. Would you have said West Germany in 1975 can’t possibly be safe because it was 30 years on from the worst genocide ever?
But, yes, it is clearly perverse to pass a law saying somewhere is safe, regardless of the facts on the ground.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
Most people don't support open borders. (I supported the idea for a short time in the late 1990s when I was in the sixth form).
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Actually to be fair I do, although I am not in this argument as that is not the point of the discussion. The problem with Rwanda for me is a combination of passing a law declaring it safe (The Emperor's New Clothes) and abrogating our international treaty commitments by declaring no right of return even if the asylum application is sucessful.
Oh and making it about open borders as if that were the question when we are letting in 1.4 million people a year anyway.
Taken with the megaliths and the beach as an ensemble - and they are all psycheographically related - that’s serious noom. Easily a 6, maybe close to 7
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
I am ambivalent about the Rwanda scheme, I don't think I know enough of the detail about it. Whatever, it seems a very expensive means if deterrent for something that many are saying will not work. Personally I can't understand the thought processes of the boat people. If I was given a choice between crossing the English channel on a souped up airbed or going to Rwanda, I think my first option would be Rwanda, it feels much less dangerous. I understand that many of them can't even swim.
Taken with the megaliths and the beach as an ensemble - and they are all psycheographically related - that’s serious noom. Easily a 6, maybe close to 7
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
I suspect that he is right and that that interview was the straw that broke the Camel's back for many SNP MSPs. Enough, just enough.
What I am less clear about is whether the Greens are capable of putting up an entirely united front on this. It seems to me that Humza's best chance is that one or more Greens will break ranks and either vote with the SNP or abstain. One vote for or two abstentions would be enough.
Salmond's broader point is that this then arises every time that there is a vote on anything. He's right but a deal with Alba, who have a single vote is not really enough to provide any form of stability. There has to be a real chance of one or more SNP MSPs standing down in the foreseeable future, certainly well before 2026. Yousaf needs more than Salmond can offer.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
I wasn’t specifically referring to you. Plenty in labour do.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
I wasn’t specifically referring to you. Plenty in labour do.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere. 2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
"You can write them a letter."
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
Ah, some honesty on the left!
It's about shifting incentives - simple enough to understand for most.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
The number of people coming over on boats, although it has been going up and up under the Conservatives, remains small compared to other forms of immigration. So, no, they are not one and the same thing.
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.
A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
We’ve now had 4 polls this month. These put the Labour lead at +14, +3, -2, +6. Street will be happy to be ahead in one poll, but Labour must still be the favourite.
It’s interesting in this new poll that it has a high Con vote share, but also still a high Reform UK vote share.
Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t try
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).
A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?
DOH there is only one person "HIM", he would have less than 50% if all others voted against him. No way could he brass it out after that.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.
True that, Its always the SNP that gets blamed. Hardly fair really. Especially when the Libs had the Lib-Lab pact.
Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t try
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral
This bit in Wiki was great.
'Saint-Pol-Roux is the archetypal "forgotten poet". It was under this title that he was a dedicatee of André Breton's Clair de Terre (also dedicated to "ceux qui comme lui s'offrent le magnifique plaisir de se faire oublier (sic)", or "those who like him offered themselves the great pleasure of making themselves forgotten"), and Vercors's Le Silence de la mer (calling him "le poète assassiné", or "the assassinated poet")'
Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.
True that, Its always the SNP that gets blamed. Hardly fair really. Especially when the Libs had the Lib-Lab pact.
I thought it was Frank Maguire, the Independent Shinner, who "abstained in person".
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere. 2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
"You can write them a letter."
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.
If I were an authoritarian regime (one of those that likes to make believe it is not authoritarian, so allows some level of liberties) I'd have the obviously corrupt but also just badly run official post office, which everyone knew opened and read their mail, but also allow several alternative 'private' entities which the casual dissenter at least might think is more reliable, but are fact is also run by the state and reads their mail.
I should expect most authoritarian regimes are even better than that, thesedays they can read dystopian fiction (or reports from North Korea, as if there's much difference) to get ideas and refine their efficient cruelties further.
Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).
'they were quickly able to explain that...'? I would have expected the average plod would have had them banged up for hours while they waited for the the men in white coats to arrive.
Random fact (as I was looking at some info on First Ministers), according to wiki there are only 2 Leader/Chief Ministers of a devolved government/overseas territories of the UK who have been in place for more than 4 years - Bermuda (6 Years), and Gibraltar (12 years).
Of the UK and Crown Dependencies it's 2.5 years (Isle of Man), clearly this is a time of great change!
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
I have listed all the things we need to do to get anyone onto a plane. We haven't done those things. And this government won't do these things because it is incompetent.
What does Israel managing to do different things have to do with it? We can't intern people prior to deportation because we don't have anywhere to intern them. What does Israel have to do with that?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
Most people don't support open borders. (I supported the idea for a short time in the late 1990s when I was in the sixth form).
Why do all the supporters of the Rwanda disgrace accuse those who oppose it of being advocates of an open border policy? That is simply untrue. There are better alternatives to Rwanda.
Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t try
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral
This is a test. Last time I tried to post a picture from my phone it failed, whereas it worked from my laptop. This will either be blank or a picture of my dog. If blank then why?
This is a test. Last time I tried to post a picture from my phone it failed, whereas it worked from my laptop. This will either be blank or a picture of my dog. If blank then why?
A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?
He needs a majority to pass a budget.
Fat Eck managed a minority government by getting other parties to vote for his budgets.
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
Street is popular to be fair. If this was a unknown Tory, Labour would probably win reasonably comfortably. Having said all that, there is evidence that the Labour Party has problems in the W Midlands.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
My argument is the Government's Rwanda policy is not the answer to stopping the boats. You seem to believe this one trick pony will stop the boats.
The Rwanda policy will be sold as a victory via smoke and mirrors. I accept it is a success as far as the Daily Mail is concerned already.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys. PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!
What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Fair play, Casino believes the Rwanda rubbish is the answer. Leon on the other hand is merely a late model enfant terrible.
Very late model, more gériatique terrible, in fact. Being a reactionary in your sixties is more Alf Garnett than Albert Camus.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
This is a test. Last time I tried to post a picture from my phone it failed, whereas it worked from my laptop. This will either be blank or a picture of my dog. If blank then why?
Yeah. Sorry for the random post.
It's ok. It's not the first time a picture of a dog has been posted on the site 👍
John Harris has become a very often superb columnist:
…About 15 years ago, our politics was briefly unsettled by a surge in support for the neofascist British National party. At the general election of 2010, the BNP proposed “a halt to all further immigration”, “the deportation of all illegal immigrants” and the end of what it called “the ‘asylum’ swindle”. As well as pulling Britain out of the EU, it said it would repeal “far-leftist social engineering projects, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, aimed at enforcing multiculturalism”, and that it rejected the “theory” of climate change. The people who came up with this stuff were a mixture of inadequates and monsters: they were never going to get anywhere near power and influence. But long after they left the stage, it is sobering to see how much of what they spewed out has now made its way into everyday politics.
Let’s be honest: the insistence that refugees might be left to drown is the kind of thing that used to be confined to the meeting rooms of dodgy pubs and white supremacist marches where the police always outnumbered the protesters. Now, it has been voiced by a millionaire property investor who was born in Pakistan, came to the UK when he was 13, and is now an enthusiastic member of a party with no end of influence. We now know that Ofcom has no issue with Farage presenting his nightly show on GB News during the forthcoming election campaign; and with Reform’s paranoid, parochial mindset also echoed by the Mail and Telegraph and soaked up by scores of Tory MPs, the party may well have a level of clout out of all proportion to whatever share of the vote it manages to attract.
What Habib said on TalkTV was surely a window into not just his party’s soul, but the warped mindset of a growing political faction that is tightening its grip on Conservatism. Self-evidently, it is following much the same script as a whole host of hard-right authoritarians: Donald Trump, the French politician Marine Le Pen, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. But these days, I keep thinking of a passage from the music and culture writer Jon Savage’s peerless book England’s Dreaming, taken from a diary entry in 1975: “Fascism here won’t be like in Germany. It’ll be English: ratty, mean, pinched”.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere. 2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
"You can write them a letter."
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.
If I were an authoritarian regime (one of those that likes to make believe it is not authoritarian, so allows some level of liberties) I'd have the obviously corrupt but also just badly run official post office, which everyone knew opened and read their mail, but also allow several alternative 'private' entities which the casual dissenter at least might think is more reliable, but are fact is also run by the state and reads their mail.
I should expect most authoritarian regimes are even better than that, thesedays they can read dystopian fiction (or reports from North Korea, as if there's much difference) to get ideas and refine their efficient cruelties further.
When I was first seeing Mrs J, and mt now F-i-L had not retired, I used to phone her up whilst she was visiting family. She warned me that there would be an unusual extra couple of tones when connecting, which you did not get from any other number. That was true. She said that all her parent's calls were recorded, and we therefore agreed to have overtly sexual conversations as the people listening in would be overtly religious young men undergoing national service, and it would embarrass them...
I'd like to think that worked.
The telling thing is that I hesitate to tell this story, as there might still be repercussions. IMV that is the line between a 'free' and 'unfree' state: whether you can say things that criticise the regime. I can say Sunak is a fucking arsehole who can get his backside out of Number Ten, and only fall foul of site and other general rules. Thew rules should apply equally to him as they do to (say) Starmer, Yousaf, or you and me.
Being fearful of (politely) criticising a politician or political party is one sign of an unfree state.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.
Talking of libs hating it. A nice little story concerning Lord Gorgeous of Teesworks
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
Does it involve howling at the pesky libs perchance?
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
Street is popular to be fair. If this was a unknown Tory, Labour would probably win reasonably comfortably. Having said all that, there is evidence that the Labour Party has problems in the W Midlands.
Just in terms of a general point, Labour is shit at election campaigns.
One factor in the West Midlands is the bankruptcy of Birmingham Council, and I think that's hurting Labour, even though it's largely due to central government starving local councils of money, as you can see by all the other local government bankruptcies, whoever they're run by.
I think there's some accumulating evidence that Labour will lose ground in the general election campaign, and somewhat stumble over the line, rather than canter to victory.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
I seem to recall reading a criticism of, er, critics using several different reasons to criticise the plan - eg that it would be ineffective, but that it was also morally wrong - but I don't really see the issue with someone sincerely believing both those things, whilst others might be against for just one. I recall when it came to the prorogation it seemed it might well be lawful - certainly at least one court thought so - but that to me was irrelevant to whether it was the right thing to do.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
In a way, that's the thing. If the plan is to start the Rwanda Express ASAP, then the election also needs to be ASAP, or the inherent absurdity of the scheme will be obvious.
Even keeping the pretence going for the 5-6 weeks of an election campaign seems ambitious.
Apart from Colonel Nicholson, who are the other famous examples of characters keeping a project going, no matter how counterproductive, out of misplaced pride and "just because it is there"-ness?
Street leads 41-39 over Parker which, to be fair, is within Margin of Error. The fieldwork for this poll done slightly earlier but does overlap with the R&W poll which had Parker ahead by six. It's also worth noting More In Common tends to give higher Conservative poll ratings for Westminster polls than other pollsters so there may be something in the sampling and weighting but we'll see on Thursday.
Perhaps they have a London Mayoral poll in the field which shows Hall within five points of Sadiq Khan - I've no clue. Zero activity in this part of London which makes me think the battle is being fought in Outer London where Khan needs only to be close to Hall in the numbers.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
In a way, that's the thing. If the plan is to start the Rwanda Express ASAP, then the election also needs to be ASAP, or the inherent absurdity of the scheme will be obvious.
Even keeping the pretence going for the 5-6 weeks of an election campaign seems ambitious.
Apart from Colonel Nicholson, who are the other famous examples of characters keeping a project going, no matter how counterproductive, out of misplaced pride and "just because it is there"-ness?
I'm bored of likening Rishi to Colonel Nicholson.
Speer? Tbf he was actually quite good at it, and had a certain ‘ideological’ investment.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.
I never understand this sudden desire to talk up the slightest thing in terms of triggering a huge polling revival for the Conservatives - I suspect very little will change between now and the GE, minds have been made up and no mention of positive spin is going to make a lot of odds. It's NOT 1992 - this time many people want the Conservatives gone.
I'm also not sure a migrant crisis in Ireland plays well for Sunak especially if we start having boat problems in the Irish Sea as well as the Channel. The problems will begin when the weather settles and warms - for now, the wind is in the north or east ans it's not pleasant.
The other thing worth noting is that I think we may well see the Tories drive a coach and horses through the concept of election purdah, and be planning the timetable of flights to Rwanda to coincide with the general election campaign.
This will make a difference. Of course it will - which is why, as a mature democracy, the concept of election purdah came about. But those fearless custodians of all that is worth preserving about Britain are so desperate to stave off defeat that I think they'll trash it anyway.
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
Er, no. If the boats go from 100 a week to 1 a week that is an obvious and huge victory
Were you always this dim? I somehow remember you were quite sharp but then you were never memorable even when sensible so I could be wrong
Chances of this drop happening? Very low. 3%?
But that also explains why they are going as fast as they can. I suspect some of them believe that the deterrent effect of a single flight will be enough to deter quite a few
They’re almost certainly wrong. But if you’re 20% behind in the polls and this is a chance of changing that significantly - then of course you’ll take the chance, however slender
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Nobody is advocating open borders.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).
And after the police left, they smuggled the drugs..,
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.
Er, no. If the boats go from 100 a week to 1 a week that is an obvious and huge victory
Were you always this dim? I somehow remember you were quite sharp but then you were never memorable even when sensible so I could be wrong
Chances of this drop happening? Very low. 3%?
But that also explains why they are going as fast as they can. I suspect some of them believe that the deterrent effect of a single flight will be enough to deter quite a few
They’re almost certainly wrong. But if you’re 20% behind in the polls and this is a chance of changing that significantly - then of course you’ll take the chance, however slender
Thanks. There's a rationale, even if I don't think it makes sense.
Even if Rishi is desperate, you can't run a country on 3% chances. (Is the problem that you can run Venture Capital on 3% chances, because when the wins come they are huge? And so that's how Rishi is processing this?)
Comments
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
Not much noom, to be honest, but what a place and what a nice story
And you can sit on his stone bench - a fallen menhir - and gaze at this frankly glorious beach
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
But, yes, it is clearly perverse to pass a law saying somewhere is safe, regardless of the facts on the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Pol-Roux
Oh and making it about open borders as if that were the question when we are letting in 1.4 million people a year anyway.
Taken with the megaliths and the beach as an ensemble - and they are all psycheographically related - that’s serious noom. Easily a 6, maybe close to 7
If he is half-hearted with Alba, they say no. If he caves, there will be a rebellion.
“He’s f***** it,” says one of the FM’s allies.
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/1784564248024166896
Personally I can't understand the thought processes of the boat people. If I was given a choice between crossing the English channel on a souped up airbed or going to Rwanda, I think my first option would be Rwanda, it feels much less dangerous. I understand that many of them can't even swim.
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)
What I am less clear about is whether the Greens are capable of putting up an entirely united front on this. It seems to me that Humza's best chance is that one or more Greens will break ranks and either vote with the SNP or abstain. One vote for or two abstentions would be enough.
Salmond's broader point is that this then arises every time that there is a vote on anything. He's right but a deal with Alba, who have a single vote is not really enough to provide any form of stability. There has to be a real chance of one or more SNP MSPs standing down in the foreseeable future, certainly well before 2026. Yousaf needs more than Salmond can offer.
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.
It's about shifting incentives - simple enough to understand for most.
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?
It’s interesting in this new poll that it has a high Con vote share, but also still a high Reform UK vote share.
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral
https://x.com/xr_londonrebels/status/1784231268697117034?s=61
'Saint-Pol-Roux is the archetypal "forgotten poet". It was under this title that he was a dedicatee of André Breton's Clair de Terre (also dedicated to "ceux qui comme lui s'offrent le magnifique plaisir de se faire oublier (sic)", or "those who like him offered themselves the great pleasure of making themselves forgotten"), and Vercors's Le Silence de la mer (calling him "le poète assassiné", or "the assassinated poet")'
Words to live by.
I should expect most authoritarian regimes are even better than that, thesedays they can read dystopian fiction (or reports from North Korea, as if there's much difference) to get ideas and refine their efficient cruelties further.
Look at their earnest expressions. What are they, a heady mix of boredom, decadence and mental illness?
New American Military Aid for Ukraine - What's in the package and what impact will it have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM
Of the UK and Crown Dependencies it's 2.5 years (Isle of Man), clearly this is a time of great change!
What does Israel managing to do different things have to do with it? We can't intern people prior to deportation because we don't have anywhere to intern them. What does Israel have to do with that?
Fat Eck managed a minority government by getting other parties to vote for his budgets.
Yousless, on the other hand, is complete fucked.
Having said all that, there is evidence that the Labour Party has problems in the W Midlands.
The Rwanda policy will be sold as a victory via smoke and mirrors. I accept it is a success as far as the Daily Mail is concerned already.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
…About 15 years ago, our politics was briefly unsettled by a surge in support for the neofascist British National party. At the general election of 2010, the BNP proposed “a halt to all further immigration”, “the deportation of all illegal immigrants” and the end of what it called “the ‘asylum’ swindle”. As well as pulling Britain out of the EU, it said it would repeal “far-leftist social engineering projects, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, aimed at enforcing multiculturalism”, and that it rejected the “theory” of climate change. The people who came up with this stuff were a mixture of inadequates and monsters: they were never going to get anywhere near power and influence. But long after they left the stage, it is sobering to see how much of what they spewed out has now made its way into everyday politics.
Let’s be honest: the insistence that refugees might be left to drown is the kind of thing that used to be confined to the meeting rooms of dodgy pubs and white supremacist marches where the police always outnumbered the protesters. Now, it has been voiced by a millionaire property investor who was born in Pakistan, came to the UK when he was 13, and is now an enthusiastic member of a party with no end of influence. We now know that Ofcom has no issue with Farage presenting his nightly show on GB News during the forthcoming election campaign; and with Reform’s paranoid, parochial mindset also echoed by the Mail and Telegraph and soaked up by scores of Tory MPs, the party may well have a level of clout out of all proportion to whatever share of the vote it manages to attract.
What Habib said on TalkTV was surely a window into not just his party’s soul, but the warped mindset of a growing political faction that is tightening its grip on Conservatism. Self-evidently, it is following much the same script as a whole host of hard-right authoritarians: Donald Trump, the French politician Marine Le Pen, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. But these days, I keep thinking of a passage from the music and culture writer Jon Savage’s peerless book England’s Dreaming, taken from a diary entry in 1975: “Fascism here won’t be like in Germany. It’ll be English: ratty, mean, pinched”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/28/children-drown-channel-britain-ben-habib-reform-uk
I'd like to think that worked.
The telling thing is that I hesitate to tell this story, as there might still be repercussions. IMV that is the line between a 'free' and 'unfree' state: whether you can say things that criticise the regime. I can say Sunak is a fucking arsehole who can get his backside out of Number Ten, and only fall foul of site and other general rules. Thew rules should apply equally to him as they do to (say) Starmer, Yousaf, or you and me.
Being fearful of (politely) criticising a politician or political party is one sign of an unfree state.
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/new-storm-over-houchen-and-teesworks/
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
One factor in the West Midlands is the bankruptcy of Birmingham Council, and I think that's hurting Labour, even though it's largely due to central government starving local councils of money, as you can see by all the other local government bankruptcies, whoever they're run by.
I think there's some accumulating evidence that Labour will lose ground in the general election campaign, and somewhat stumble over the line, rather than canter to victory.
Even keeping the pretence going for the 5-6 weeks of an election campaign seems ambitious.
Apart from Colonel Nicholson, who are the other famous examples of characters keeping a project going, no matter how counterproductive, out of misplaced pride and "just because it is there"-ness?
I'm bored of likening Rishi to Colonel Nicholson.
This is the poll which has got @Andy_JS so excited.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Street leads 41-39 over Parker which, to be fair, is within Margin of Error. The fieldwork for this poll done slightly earlier but does overlap with the R&W poll which had Parker ahead by six. It's also worth noting More In Common tends to give higher Conservative poll ratings for Westminster polls than other pollsters so there may be something in the sampling and weighting but we'll see on Thursday.
Perhaps they have a London Mayoral poll in the field which shows Hall within five points of Sadiq Khan - I've no clue. Zero activity in this part of London which makes me think the battle is being fought in Outer London where Khan needs only to be close to Hall in the numbers.
I'm also not sure a migrant crisis in Ireland plays well for Sunak especially if we start having boat problems in the Irish Sea as well as the Channel. The problems will begin when the weather settles and warms - for now, the wind is in the north or east ans it's not pleasant.
NEW THREAD
This will make a difference. Of course it will - which is why, as a mature democracy, the concept of election purdah came about. But those fearless custodians of all that is worth preserving about Britain are so desperate to stave off defeat that I think they'll trash it anyway.
Were you always this dim? I somehow remember you were quite sharp but then you were never memorable even when sensible so I could be wrong
Chances of this drop happening? Very low. 3%?
But that also explains why they are going as fast as they can. I suspect some of them believe that the deterrent effect of a single flight will be enough to deter quite a few
They’re almost certainly wrong. But if you’re 20% behind in the polls and this is a chance of changing that significantly - then of course you’ll take the chance, however slender
Were you always this dim?
Even if Rishi is desperate, you can't run a country on 3% chances. (Is the problem that you can run Venture Capital on 3% chances, because when the wins come they are huge? And so that's how Rishi is processing this?)