A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
I don't understand how that poll would result in the LDs losing 2 seats according to the seats projector. I would expect gains in the Tory/LD heartlands with LD and Reform up and Lab and Tory's down in the poll numbers.
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
What was the joke?
“A Vietnamese-American lady, partner in a Wall Stream law firm gets out of her limo. And wrinkles her nose at the homeless guy. He’s the privileged one.”
'The UK Foreign Office (FCDO) asked for a visit by the former Taiwanese president to be postponed so as not to anger China ahead of a trip by David Lammy, the Guardian has learned.
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
The problems occur when, instead of calling out actual racism and sexism, people instead seek to blame mostly white men *as a group* for behaviours which the vast majority of individuals don’t exhibit.
No, I think the problems occur when so many areas of society still show massive underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities, e.g. judges, journalists, PB commentators.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
I remember when I broke my collarbone. I wanted a future where I didn’t have a broken collarbone, but focusing on where I wanted to go while ignoring the existing problem, a broken collarbone, would have been stupid. We want a future without racism and sexism, but pretending they are not an ongoing problem today won’t achieve that future.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
But Rwanda was not “offshore detention” was it? As I understand it, we were merely paying them to allow people to settle in Rwanda which is not the same thing.
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
I remember when I broke my collarbone. I wanted a future where I didn’t have a broken collarbone, but focusing on where I wanted to go while ignoring the existing problem, a broken collarbone, would have been stupid. We want a future without racism and sexism, but pretending they are not an ongoing problem today won’t achieve that future.
But your job was to put in place the conditions that would allow your body to heal the collarbone, then let it heal, not constantly jab at it, or break some of your other bones so that their privilege wouldn't interfere with your collarbone.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
Isn't Starmer just "continuity technocrat? 🤔 A red tie wearing technocrat as opposed to Sunaks blue one..hard to hate really in that context..more a sense nothing will really change..🧐🤨
UK debt was running at 40% right up until the GFC. Then in a couple of years it doubled to 80%. In September 2024, it rose to 100% of GDP. The cost of servicing that debt alone comes to £112bn last year, which is about equal to what we spend on education, and 2/3rds of what we spend on the NHS.
Whether the chancellor is wearing a blue tie or a red tie, the only answers are cutting public services or raising taxes, or a combination thereof.
Fundamentally the UK's problem is it never recovered from the GFC, and now UK PLC lurches on much like a "zombie company" that's up to its eyeballs in debt, no longer investing in growth and sweating existing assets until they eventually break. Companies like that eventually go broke and disappear. What happens to UK PLC?
Unpalatable as it is, there's an argument that the big taxes - income tax, NI, VAT - need to go up temporarily to pay down debt and start investing in growth again. Benefits need to be cut. The billions we spend every year on asylum seekers and so on. The problem is there is every indication this lot will waste any extra money on pay rises for their trade union mates, 22bn carbon capture schemes, and so on. The Tories were just as bad though, diverting money from Network North to fix potholes in London, for example.
Taxes need to go up and/or public spending needs to be cut. And things are going to be very grim for the next few years. TINA.
The one benefit of being hugely unpopular is that they could U-turn on 'no tax rises'. If they're ever going to do it, then now is the time.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
2 - Solar panels delivering enough power to export at 3kW, so Octopus and the FIT between them were paying me a quite surprising amount for this time of year.
3 - Emptying the last of last year's frozen apples and blackberries crumbles for the making of, I find an air fryer bacon turnover that has been hiding since the summer. Lunch.
4 - I still don't know how to make melba toast in my air fryer.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
The solution to illegal immigration is to impose incredibly harsh sentences on directors of companies or people employing someone who does not have the right to work. Then have a scheme that incentivises illegal immigrants to grass on their bosses as @rcs1000 has previously advocated for (like in Switzerland I understand).
You could spend the millions of pounds you would have spent on Rwanda on enforcement and immigration policing.
Why we haven’t even done a light touch version of this alarms me. I can only assume there’s some massive vested interests somewhere but the alternative is gunning boats down in the Channel…
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
But Rwanda was not “offshore detention” was it? As I understand it, we were merely paying them to allow people to settle in Rwanda which is not the same thing.
Then modify the scheme, you know Labour are in government now. Scrapping it entirely was completely idiotic because now we're going to be behind 27 other countries looking for similar deals. I also don't think the EU will have the UK in its deal because it will be some kind of Schengen accord that we're never going to be part of (though if it works it removes a big barrier for the UK and Ireland joining Schengen).
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
But Rwanda was not “offshore detention” was it? As I understand it, we were merely paying them to allow people to settle in Rwanda which is not the same thing.
Then modify the scheme, you know Labour are in government now. Scrapping it entirely was completely idiotic because now we're going to be behind 27 other countries looking for similar deals. I also don't think the EU will have the UK in its deal because it will be some kind of Schengen accord that we're never going to be part of (though if it works it removes a big barrier for the UK and Ireland joining Schengen).
Well let’s see what Labour propose to do but I will be disappointed if they do nothing. The fact is that we don’t know yet.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
If that was proposed here by Farage he'd be called a fascist and a Nazi.
Anyone else watching the SpaceX Starship test flight, where they are going to try and hover the rocket alongside the near the tower on the way back, they reach out and grab it with a large metal arm?
Looks like it’s scheduled for around 12:20 UK time, it’s either going to be one of the most spectacular things done in years in the field of aerospace, or it’s going to go horribly wrong and generate a somewhat massive explosion!
Time to repost this from Asif Siddiq's excellent: "The Challenge to Apollo". It is Valeriy A Menshikov's memory of the explosion after the second N1 flight.
" We were all looking in the direction of the launch, where the hundred-meter pyramid of the rocket was being readied to be hurled into space. Ignition, the flash of flame from the engines, and the rocket slowly rose on a column of flame . And suddenly, at the place where it had just been, a bright fireball. Not one of us understood anything at first. A terrible purple-black mushroom cloud, so familiar from the pictures from the textbook on weapons of mass destruction. The steppe began to rock and the air began to shake, and all of the soldiers and officers froze. "
" Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around-the steppe was trembling like a vibration test jig, thundering, rumbling. whistling. gnashing-all mixed together in some terrible. seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare . .. the thick wave from the explosion passed over us. sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away. and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. A 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof of the installation and testing wing, seven kilometers from the launch pad. "
" We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified-the windows and doors were smashed out. the iron entrance gate was askew. the equipment was scattered about with the light of dawn and was turned to stone-the steppe was literally strewn with dead animals and birds. Where so many of them came from and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand."
In the film of it, you can see people catching fire as they ran….
Yes, that's quite a horrific film. But Brazil had something similar in the 1980s, where >20 people died. From memory, the stage started whilst the rocket was on the ground, a few days before the planned launch.
Also, I'd say that if a Saturn V had gone up on, or near, the pad, the devastation would have been massive (NASA did a study onto the effects of a Shuttle explosion, and the results would not have been pretty...). Incidentally, that N1 rocket blast only used up a small fraction of the available fuel.
The shuttle estimates proved to be way off - they assumed an instantaneous detonation of all the hydrogen and oxygen.
Challenger showed that you actually get a deflagration with cryogenics as they mix. As did the high altitude breakup of Super Heavy.
The biggest miss was the solid boosters -assumed to pretty much sit there - they could fly off like ICBMs, and/or break up into large, heavy, burning fragments. See the failed Titan launch from the 80s
I'm talking about a study done in 2003/4 after the Colombia disaster, as part of their rework of the program.
Which, IIRC, pointed out that deflagration would be the outcome of a pad explosion. But that the SRBs would do most of the damage. The extreme worst case was the SRB launching themselves, then requiring the destruct to be activated - the thick steel cases would form huge bombs. At ground level or low altitude, the damage would be pretty bad.
I ended up corresponding with the late Danny Deager (ex-Shuttle guy) on the sim he created that proved that SRB destruct was a lethal danger for Ares I. I adapted his code to run on GPU.
He managed to get this into the report on Ares I. Which was part of the reason The Stick died.
This ? ..A study released in July 2009 by the 45th Space Wing of the US Air Force concluded that an abort 30–60 seconds after launch would have a ≈100% chance of killing all crew, due to the capsule being engulfed until ground impact by a cloud of 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) solid propellant fragments, which would melt the capsule's nylon parachute material. NASA's study showed the crew capsule would have flown beyond the more severe danger...
And if it's not a rude question, what is it that you do ?
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
I remember when I broke my collarbone. I wanted a future where I didn’t have a broken collarbone, but focusing on where I wanted to go while ignoring the existing problem, a broken collarbone, would have been stupid. We want a future without racism and sexism, but pretending they are not an ongoing problem today won’t achieve that future.
But your job was to put in place the conditions that would allow your body to heal the collarbone, then let it heal, not constantly jab at it, or break some of your other bones so that their privilege wouldn't interfere with your collarbone.
No. Allowing the body to heal didn’t work: that just left me in pain for 6 months. Eventually, it took two operations to fix it, the second of which was a… if I remember the jargon correctly… an acromio-clavicular ligament transfer. This literally involves cutting one connection in the body and using it to stabilise the collarbone instead. Not that I expected you to know the details of my whacky shoulder surgery — it’s an uncommon operation — but it’s amusing that the metaphor continued to work so well!
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
The thing I am always struck by the SpaceX coverage, its Hollywood movie stuff....they had the drones up, multi-camera etc, incredible views, incredible quality.
If I remember correctly they spent ages fixing the problem with the camera live feed cut off on the drone ship, Musk said it wasn't acceptable.
Isn't Starmer just "continuity technocrat? 🤔 A red tie wearing technocrat as opposed to Sunaks blue one..hard to hate really in that context..more a sense nothing will really change..🧐🤨
UK debt was running at 40% right up until the GFC. Then in a couple of years it doubled to 80%. In September 2024, it rose to 100% of GDP. The cost of servicing that debt alone comes to £112bn last year, which is about equal to what we spend on education, and 2/3rds of what we spend on the NHS.
Whether the chancellor is wearing a blue tie or a red tie, the only answers are cutting public services or raising taxes, or a combination thereof.
Fundamentally the UK's problem is it never recovered from the GFC, and now UK PLC lurches on much like a "zombie company" that's up to its eyeballs in debt, no longer investing in growth and sweating existing assets until they eventually break. Companies like that eventually go broke and disappear. What happens to UK PLC?
Unpalatable as it is, there's an argument that the big taxes - income tax, NI, VAT - need to go up temporarily to pay down debt and start investing in growth again. Benefits need to be cut. The billions we spend every year on asylum seekers and so on. The problem is there is every indication this lot will waste any extra money on pay rises for their trade union mates, 22bn carbon capture schemes, and so on. The Tories were just as bad though, diverting money from Network North to fix potholes in London, for example.
Taxes need to go up and/or public spending needs to be cut. And things are going to be very grim for the next few years. TINA.
The one benefit of being hugely unpopular is that they could U-turn on 'no tax rises'. If they're ever going to do it, then now is the time.
I agree.
Even reversing recent and planned cuts to NI would make a difference, and could simply be spun as reversing an unaffordable cut.
There's some detailed analysis in today's FT (paywalled) that goes into more detail on some of the points I've touched on, including the dire growth stats for the UK compared to other western economies.
The killer, though, is that the analysis there states that to keep borrowing, taxes have to rise to keep the confidence of the market that we can afford repayments.
As you say, it is better to do it now and hope it brings our finances back in order by 2029. The alternative is to carry on as we are, which brings to mind the old quote about ways to go bankrupt - very slowly, then all at once...
The solution to illegal immigration is to impose incredibly harsh sentences on directors of companies or people employing someone who does not have the right to work. Then have a scheme that incentivises illegal immigrants to grass on their bosses as @rcs1000 has previously advocated for (like in Switzerland I understand).
You could spend the millions of pounds you would have spent on Rwanda on enforcement and immigration policing.
Why we haven’t even done a light touch version of this alarms me. I can only assume there’s some massive vested interests somewhere but the alternative is gunning boats down in the Channel…
Coming down hard on those employing people without the right to work would demonstrate that the vast majority of such people are visa overstayers and not those who came over on small boats.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
But Rwanda was not “offshore detention” was it? As I understand it, we were merely paying them to allow people to settle in Rwanda which is not the same thing.
Then modify the scheme, you know Labour are in government now. Scrapping it entirely was completely idiotic because now we're going to be behind 27 other countries looking for similar deals. I also don't think the EU will have the UK in its deal because it will be some kind of Schengen accord that we're never going to be part of (though if it works it removes a big barrier for the UK and Ireland joining Schengen).
Well let’s see what Labour propose to do but I will be disappointed if they do nothing. The fact is that we don’t know yet.
Numbers coming over on boats are down on the same period last year already.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
A really thought-provoking thread header, thanks. One of the more questions to me about the current drive to rid us of toxic masculinity is whether it is making women and girls happier. It doesn't seem to me to be working that way. I'm not sure that grievance ever works well for the aggrieved. The civil rights movement was moving toward a positive goal. The current grievance politics on race and the fight against 'toxic masculinity' are not. They're saying 'comport yourself differently so I can feel better' - that's a disaster in a number of ways. It is never 'done', the finish line is never reached. It wants some people to have things worse so others can (in theory) have things better, as if wellbeing is a zero sum game. Teach all kids to be polite, respectful, kind, and to value and respect themselves. Leave race and gender out of it.
Leaving race and gender out of it is turning a blind eye to the ongoing sexism and racism in the world. A bunch of white men saying, “We’ve done enough. You can stop complaining now.” isn’t very persuasive.
That's exactly what we should be doing - focusing on where we want to go, focusing on everyone being privileged, not removing or punishing privileges that we perceive in others.
I remember when I broke my collarbone. I wanted a future where I didn’t have a broken collarbone, but focusing on where I wanted to go while ignoring the existing problem, a broken collarbone, would have been stupid. We want a future without racism and sexism, but pretending they are not an ongoing problem today won’t achieve that future.
But your job was to put in place the conditions that would allow your body to heal the collarbone, then let it heal, not constantly jab at it, or break some of your other bones so that their privilege wouldn't interfere with your collarbone.
No. Allowing the body to heal didn’t work: that just left me in pain for 6 months. Eventually, it took two operations to fix it, the second of which was a… if I remember the jargon correctly… an acromio-clavicular ligament transfer. This literally involves cutting one connection in the body and using it to stabilise the collarbone instead. Not that I expected you to know the details of my whacky shoulder surgery — it’s an uncommon operation — but it’s amusing that the metaphor continued to work so well!
Surgery, even two surgeries, is not constant interference, it is a serious, considered intervention that puts the conditions in place for the body to heal itself.
That was a fake video, on a fake channel designed to look like the official SpaceX channel but gaming the YouTube algorithm. It had 300k viewers at one point.
Sorry guys, and glad we didn’t miss the actual launch. Quite an achievement to catch a rocket at the first attempt.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Where exactly are "actual Nazis" being elected in Europe?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
But Rwanda was not “offshore detention” was it? As I understand it, we were merely paying them to allow people to settle in Rwanda which is not the same thing.
Then modify the scheme, you know Labour are in government now. Scrapping it entirely was completely idiotic because now we're going to be behind 27 other countries looking for similar deals. I also don't think the EU will have the UK in its deal because it will be some kind of Schengen accord that we're never going to be part of (though if it works it removes a big barrier for the UK and Ireland joining Schengen).
Well let’s see what Labour propose to do but I will be disappointed if they do nothing. The fact is that we don’t know yet.
Numbers coming over on boats are down on the same period last year already.
Has Starmer trashed Britain's appeal abroad that much already???
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
The solution to illegal immigration is to impose incredibly harsh sentences on directors of companies or people employing someone who does not have the right to work. Then have a scheme that incentivises illegal immigrants to grass on their bosses as @rcs1000 has previously advocated for (like in Switzerland I understand).
You could spend the millions of pounds you would have spent on Rwanda on enforcement and immigration policing.
Why we haven’t even done a light touch version of this alarms me. I can only assume there’s some massive vested interests somewhere but the alternative is gunning boats down in the Channel…
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
Rwanda isn't a failed scheme, it's a scrapped scheme. And it was already working in some capacity, or SKS wouldn't be the toast of the boat people.
And it was/is flawed in many ways, but was still a lot better than not having Rwanda.
The solution to illegal immigration is to impose incredibly harsh sentences on directors of companies or people employing someone who does not have the right to work. Then have a scheme that incentivises illegal immigrants to grass on their bosses as @rcs1000 has previously advocated for (like in Switzerland I understand).
You could spend the millions of pounds you would have spent on Rwanda on enforcement and immigration policing.
Why we haven’t even done a light touch version of this alarms me. I can only assume there’s some massive vested interests somewhere but the alternative is gunning boats down in the Channel…
Why not defend our borders instead?
We should do but we should also focus on the British people feeding the demand and profiting from it at all of our expense.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
Rwanda isn't a failed scheme, it's a scrapped scheme. And it was already working in some capacity, or SKS wouldn't be the toast of the boat people.
And it was/is flawed in many ways, but was still a lot better than not having Rwanda.
Number of people coming over on boats is down. How does that show Starmer is the “toast of the boat people”?
They're not actual Nazis though are they? They're right wing parties whose predecessors had links with some Nazis. I'm not saying they're not a bit unsavoury but it's like saying "Actual Whigs entered into coalition government in 2010".
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
And yet the EU is doing precisely that. Reaching agreements with African countries for offshore detention and processing
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
If you can provide the details of the EU scheme we can discuss the details otherwise it’s just vague nonsense from you. I want to stop illegal immigration as much as the next person (primarily for the reasons you mention) but I think supply-side is a better use of resources considering our geographical location.
Italy is already using Albania
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
Tusk wanting to remove the right to asylum altogether (temporarily) ought to be a bigger story.
I've been predicting that our political classes will get to this for some years now. Asylum will change from being a right to being an offer which we can choose to make as we see fit. So, we would, under such a regime, have almost certainly allowed large numbers of HK Chinese and Ukrainians to come here. Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis, few, if any, and strictly capped.
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
You want an Islamophobic asylum policy?
No, I just think that this is where we will end up. The current system is simply not sustainable from any point of view. It belongs to a different world.
And we will have to be honest that we prefer certain kinds of migration over others. @bondegezou will see it as Islamophobic but voters won’t agree
They're not actual Nazis though are they? They're right wing parties whose predecessors had links with some Nazis. I'm not saying they're not a bit unsavoury but it's like saying "Actual Whigs entered into coalition government in 2010".
The Austrians are particularly nasty and they descend directly from Nazis and they are happy to use Nazi terms and imagery, quite deliberately. They make Le Pen look like Ed Davey
Trump's campaigning is becoming slightly weird. The day before yesterday he was in California. Yesterday he was in Colorado. He has no chance in either of these states. What does he think he is doing?
EU to table offshore asylum seeker detention centres, Starmer has to either do similar deals or watch the boat arrivals 10x as illegal immigrants all across Europe make their way to soft touch Britain.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I said before the GE he would end up doing this. A “version” of Rwanda. Because it’s the only possible humane solution to this problem, as Australia shows
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
Starmer will never U-Turn to that. They would lose all creditability, and also all the left that got so worked up about Rwanda would be outraged and all Reform-y types would go what a twat. That popularity would go sub -100 (even the illegal immigrants would be against him)...
He wants to join the EU's scheme. That's what he's always wanted.
The price will be joining Schengen, which isn't a terrible idea if the deal works.
The price will be taking whatever proportion of EU migrants is considered 'our share' at any one time. That is not remotely tolerable. And there's no need for it. The boats don't come to Australia any more - they sorted it. Just have the balls and put the necessary legal framework in place to do what they did. Grown up shit that actual countries do.
How many times does it have to be said to you that we don’t have a convenient island we can drag immigrant boats to. Flying them to Africa is not remotely the same thing, not least from a cost perspective (or agreement of such African countries) regardless of the legal framework.
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
Has Starmer surrendered the rest of the islands, too?
Comments
I just checked Starmer’s polling again. His peak was actually mid August at +11. Now he’s -38 in mid October
It’s quite stupefying. He’s fallen 49 points in about 60 days. That’s nearly a point a day; he’s making Truss look like a popular success
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slu4rTF-Bz0
Harris 50%
Trump 48%
NY Times/Siena poll re Hispanics
Registered voters
Harris 52%
Trump 40%
Likely voters
Harris 56%
Trump 37%
That LV does look a bit strange , that’s a large enthusiasm gap .
“A Vietnamese-American lady, partner in a Wall Stream law firm gets out of her limo. And wrinkles her nose at the homeless guy. He’s the privileged one.”
https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-good-salary-in-UK/answer/Rob-Crossgrove-1?ch=15&oid=1477743817791184&share=07b8a438&srid=u1dfe&target_type=answer
Edit: that was a fake Youtube page that somehow got to be the top link. That’s an AI Musk speaking.
You need to watch SoaceX on TwiX
It’s the only reliable source. T -8
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme will be seen as the biggest failing of this government if the EU manages to get a consensus for offshore detention.
I LOVE ELON
I just hope he can similarly deliver the election
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1RDGlyognOgJL
He’s just a fucking terrible slow learner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIKI7y3DTXk
If they're ever going to do it, then now is the time.
1 - Outside temprature 6C. Cooooooooooooooldddddd.
2 - Solar panels delivering enough power to export at 3kW, so Octopus and the FIT between them were paying me a quite surprising amount for this time of year.
3 - Emptying the last of last year's frozen apples and blackberries crumbles for the making of, I find an air fryer bacon turnover that has been hiding since the summer. Lunch.
4 - I still don't know how to make melba toast in my air fryer.
You could spend the millions of pounds you would have spent on Rwanda on enforcement and immigration policing.
Why we haven’t even done a light touch version of this alarms me. I can only assume there’s some massive vested interests somewhere but the alternative is gunning boats down in the Channel…
They did it.
Stunning
How can you prefer the moribund Biden/Harris America to the Musk-Trump America that does THIS
I really don't see any alternative but our political classes will try everything else first.
Will pass entirely without comment with Tusk.
Coming in at a diagonal avoids that plus anything going wrong on the final approach dumps the booster next to the tower, not on top of it.
..A study released in July 2009 by the 45th Space Wing of the US Air Force concluded that an abort 30–60 seconds after launch would have a ≈100% chance of killing all crew, due to the capsule being engulfed until ground impact by a cloud of 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) solid propellant fragments, which would melt the capsule's nylon parachute material. NASA's study showed the crew capsule would have flown beyond the more severe danger...
And if it's not a rude question, what is it that you do ?
Lawyers are not the only reason “Rwanda” was a stupid idea
If I remember correctly they spent ages fixing the problem with the camera live feed cut off on the drone ship, Musk said it wasn't acceptable.
Even reversing recent and planned cuts to NI would make a difference, and could simply be spun as reversing an unaffordable cut.
There's some detailed analysis in today's FT (paywalled) that goes into more detail on some of the points I've touched on, including the dire growth stats for the UK compared to other western economies.
https://www.ft.com/content/ec4abdbc-ab7b-4744-9d5d-87cfea52abc4
The killer, though, is that the analysis there states that to keep borrowing, taxes have to rise to keep the confidence of the market that we can afford repayments.
As you say, it is better to do it now and hope it brings our finances back in order by 2029. The alternative is to carry on as we are, which brings to mind the old quote about ways to go bankrupt - very slowly, then all at once...
When do they launch another one?
The alternative is thousands dying in the Med (and the Channel) every year. Is that better?
You’re just not very bright and you couldn’t extrapolate to this inevitable endpoint
Actual Nazis are now being elected in Europe - and they will gain power and be far more brutal than this, unless Democratic politicians grasp the nettle first. Asylum and migration are destroying Europe
Today isn't over anyway, I believe the shuttle is coming back is it not?
Sorry guys, and glad we didn’t miss the actual launch. Quite an achievement to catch a rocket at the first attempt.
And it was/is flawed in many ways, but was still a lot better than not having Rwanda.
Official BO link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gmm_VxxMsA starts in half an hour.
This is vibrant Biden/Harris America.
“In a much-hyped event, the electric vehicle car-maker's boss Elon Musk unveiled plans for the Cybercab to be in production before 2027.”
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13950949/MARKET-REPORT-60bn-wiped-Tesla-Robotaxi-launch-falls-flat.html
“Italy’s offshore detention centers in Albania open for business“
https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-offshore-detention-centers-albania-migration-asylum-processing-giorgia-meloni/
It seems to be working so the rest of the EU is copying, and they’re looking at Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, Libya and others
“European countries have ordered Brussels to investigate the feasibility of Rwanda-style offshore processing centres for asylum seekers ahead of an EU summit set to be dominated by migration next week.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/eu-to-discuss-rwanda-style-asylum-centres-across-europe/