The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Please find any codified limit, or even any evidence of a de facto limit, for the amount of times that an asylum seeker in the UK can make a fresh claim.
To appeal an initial asylum decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), you need some reason for the appeal in order to be given Permission to Appeal. This has to be an error in law by the First-tier Tribunal. If you are successful in that, you can go to the Upper Tribunal. If they say no, you can go to the Court of Appeal, although this is difficult. If they say no, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, although phenomenally difficult to get through to them. That's not an indefinite line of courts you can go to.
You are ignoring the possibilities of fresh applications being made at various stages. Fresh applications arise frequently because we are so poor at enforcing initial decisions or refusals. After a few years, marrying someone who has the right to be here, the odd child etc. such applications are often successful and, even when they are not, greatly prolong the process.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
why not just use driving licence, even if you don't drive you can get a provisional. Our lot will squander billions on a shit solution
I'm medically disqualified so can't get any sort of D/L. I could use passport whilst its in date though
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You just provided one. You claimed “nearly all” Pakistani asylum seekers are refused. You denied there was a problem. Indeed you denied it by lying about it. Because what you said is a lie
Pakistan Asylum Seekers (and initial decision) 2023 Q3 to 2025 Q2 Total applications: 19,392 Grant of Protection: 7,608 (39%) Grant of Other Leave: 103 (1%) Refused: 9,003 (46%) Withdrawn: 1,853 (10%) Admin Outcome: 825 (4%)
Bangladesh is more likely to be rejected but still nowhere near nearly everyone. Total applications: 15,079 Grant of Protection: 2,310 (15%) Grant of Other Leave: 126 (1%) Refused: 9,594 (64%) Withdrawn: 2,600 (17%) Admin Outcome: 449 (3%)
Of those refused or withdrawn how many were returned ?
It's literally on the page I linked to. Over the same time period, Pakistan 2,118 and Bangladesh 551.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Completely see your point. However I think the rules change when there is no strong sets of affirmatibe support for any party at all that is founded on the basic opinion that the party is clear about its principles and objectives, and fundamentally can field a team that can run a country.
The SDP at its height were facing both a Labour party seriously more credible than the current lot, despite its left lurch under Foot, and a Tory party in full pomp. Both parties has comprehensible principles and programmes.
Reform could win (I give them a 30% chance of majority government, that number on a rising trajectory) by being the least worst option for 34% or thereabouts of voters. On current form no-one will win on merit in 2029. So the rules have changed form the 1980s!
Maybe. But always remember the most expensive sentence in the English language: "This time its different."
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You just provided one. You claimed “nearly all” Pakistani asylum seekers are refused. You denied there was a problem. Indeed you denied it by lying about it. Because what you said is a lie
Pakistan Asylum Seekers (and initial decision) 2023 Q3 to 2025 Q2 Total applications: 19,392 Grant of Protection: 7,608 (39%) Grant of Other Leave: 103 (1%) Refused: 9,003 (46%) Withdrawn: 1,853 (10%) Admin Outcome: 825 (4%)
Bangladesh is more likely to be rejected but still nowhere near nearly everyone. Total applications: 15,079 Grant of Protection: 2,310 (15%) Grant of Other Leave: 126 (1%) Refused: 9,594 (64%) Withdrawn: 2,600 (17%) Admin Outcome: 449 (3%)
Of those refused or withdrawn how many were returned ?
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Do you have a source for that claim, or is it entirely unsubstantiated like your "nearly all" claim earlier?
The Migration Observatory link earlier gave a majority of applicants from Pakistan being improved at the initial stage, let alone after challenges, so I'm not sure how that fits in with your claim that most are refused even after challenges.
The question asked was about Pakistan and Bangladesh. Over the both of them, the majority are refused. I said, "Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused." Take all the applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and see how many are accepted and how many refused. Most are refused. Within those three countries, Pakistan has the highest acceptance rate, Bangladesh in the middle and India the lowest. Do you see what I was saying now? Apologies if my wording was poor earlier.
That's disingenuous wording at best.
"... most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh ..." implies the majority from India, the majority from Pakistan and the majority from Bangladesh are refused. Not that the majority from that region, aggregated together, are refused.
In reality, for Pakistan after appeals the approval rate has been a [significant] majority in each of 2019 to 2022, with the current approval rate at 48% for 2023 but many still awaiting appeals so that figure likely could rise to a majority.
In 2020 and 2021 the approval rate after appeals were 66% and 65% respectively, so two-thirds. Doesn't match your claims whatsoever.
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Do you have a source for that claim, or is it entirely unsubstantiated like your "nearly all" claim earlier?
The Migration Observatory link earlier gave a majority of applicants from Pakistan being improved at the initial stage, let alone after challenges, so I'm not sure how that fits in with your claim that most are refused even after challenges.
The question asked was about Pakistan and Bangladesh. Over the both of them, the majority are refused. I said, "Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused." Take all the applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and see how many are accepted and how many refused. Most are refused. Within those three countries, Pakistan has the highest acceptance rate, Bangladesh in the middle and India the lowest. Do you see what I was saying now? Apologies if my wording was poor earlier.
No. You lied. About race and migration. As you always do
Which is exactly the problem @Casino_Royale was eloquently describing. You’re a living example. You live and breathe a fantasy world of consoling fibs. It was once kind of amusing but it increasingly becomes dangerous
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
I think it is incompetence, rather than malice. (Or a refusal to compromise.)
Take the Conservative administrations under Johnson and Sunak and the issue of immigration.
They miscalculated how many people would come on the skilled worker program, and set the salary limits far too low. They miscalculated how many visa dependents would come when they opened up academic study visas. And they allowed themselves to be scared by representatives of the care homes community about worker shortages.
All of those mistakes were recognised, and changes were made. But changes were made three years after it became clear there was a problem.
The number of student visas is down sharply. The minimum salary is up dramatically.
The errors were (a) miscalculation, and (b) taking years to correct their errors.
Good businesses run on incrementalism. We have targets. If we see numbers are way out of line from what we expected, we don't commission a study, that reports back at some point in the future. We say "this number is out of whack: what is the simplest, quickest, easiest way of solving it, without causing issues down the line."
So, for the salary limit, when it was clear we were getting 3x the expected number of people, the salary limit should have ben increased by (say) 10% after three months. And if that didn't change the numbers enough, you can move it by a further 20% two months after that.
The difference between successful and unsuccessful businesses is being responsive to data.
And the Conservative government was woefully slow to respond. The models said [x] people would come, and - such is human nature - you say "oh, it's temporary, it will change". No! Be responsive, because responsiveness works in two ways.
Not getting any student visa applications, and you expected 25,000: well, maybe we can loosen up the requirements. But be constantly responsive to the data, while being very open about your targets.
When did we last have a Government that was in any way really competent to that extent?
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Please find any codified limit, or even any evidence of a de facto limit, for the amount of times that an asylum seeker in the UK can make a fresh claim.
To appeal an initial asylum decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), you need some reason for the appeal in order to be given Permission to Appeal. This has to be an error in law by the First-tier Tribunal. If you are successful in that, you can go to the Upper Tribunal. If they say no, you can go to the Court of Appeal, although this is difficult. If they say no, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, although phenomenally difficult to get through to them. That's not an indefinite line of courts you can go to.
That is a single claim, and a single process.
I am talking about an indefinite number of fresh claims that can be made by someone whose initial claim has been refused. A fresh claim that may involve providing new evidence supporting the initial claim, or something totally different.
People can make claims. You can go to a court and claim you were abducted by aliens and the Government should compensate you as many times as you want. But those claims aren't going to succeed without some basis to them.
We have an asylum system that is far from perfect, but it does turn lots of people away, many of whom then leave the country. I hope the new government can increase the speed with which final decisions are made and ensure that those who do not have a valid claim do leave. Those were both areas were the previous government performed badly.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be (and say that you can work or rent a property).
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
In my not-entirely-humble opinion, this is the second largest US domestic problem: The “onrushing debt disaster”. In a recent column, George Will passes on Professor Mankiw’s five possible solutions, none of them likely in the near future. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/08/economic-fiscal-debt-crisis/
There are, he says, five ways to “stop this upward trajectory” of debt: extraordinary economic growth, government default, large-scale money creation, substantial cuts in government spending and large tax increases. The probability of each is low.
As it happens, I’m old enough so that it is unlikely our debt disaster will have much effect on me. But I feel like apologizing whenever I see a little kid, knowing the burden my generation, and the following ones, have loaded on to them.
There’s an old Peanuts cartoon, in which Lucy is complaining about the problems her generation will inherit. But she has a solution: When Linus asks her what can they do, she says “Stick the next generation.”
We are worse than she, because we are going to stick at least the next two generations.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
Not in one election. The closest would be Labour who were considered the third party in 1918 and entered government in 1924 after two elections.
I say 'considered' because it was rather tricky to work out who the largest party after the Unionists were in 1918.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
Your challenge is a refined one, hard to meet. How about this: The government has never said words to this effect: 'Mr Trump being president of the USA is a problem'.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
It issue isn't a card, most people have passports and driving licences, it is the discussion of an ID card by politicians has always turned to having this massive database that is accessible across the public sector (in a way your passport isn't).
Given we have stories like the leaked of sensitive id info of Afghanis no less than 49 times, I don't have a lot of confidence.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
It issue isn't a card, most people have passports and driving licences, it is the discussion of an ID card by politicians has always turned to having this massive database that is accessible across the public sector (in a way your passport isn't).
Where is the discussion of that massive database where everyone had access - it's not existed since about 2005 and nowadays it never would.
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
ID cards solve a problem. A single sign-on point to Government systems solves a whole set of problems.
My limits are - allowing people to look at (any) data without a valid reason or being required to carry something at all times...
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
And their programme to deal with it?
They have increased some taxation, notably NI employers' contributions. They have tried to cut spending in some areas. I'm not flying a flag for the Labour administration. I didn't vote for them. I don't think they're doing a good job. My point is that @Casino_Royale is claiming that there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform". That seems to me to be wrong. The Government seems very aware that there are problems and they want to tackle them.
It helps to diagnose what the challenge is before you can solve it. The challenge is not Casino's persecution fantasy that the "governing elites" refuse to recognise anything he thinks is a problem.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
It issue isn't a card, most people have passports and driving licences, it is the discussion of an ID card by politicians has always turned to having this massive database that is accessible across the public sector (in a way your passport isn't).
Where is the discussion of that massive database where everyone had access - it's not existed since about 2005 and nowadays it never would.
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
There is not a lot of point to an ID card versus your driving licence / passport if you aren't going to have such a database from the states perspective. I don't trust any government on this.
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Do you have a source for that claim, or is it entirely unsubstantiated like your "nearly all" claim earlier?
The Migration Observatory link earlier gave a majority of applicants from Pakistan being improved at the initial stage, let alone after challenges, so I'm not sure how that fits in with your claim that most are refused even after challenges.
The question asked was about Pakistan and Bangladesh. Over the both of them, the majority are refused. I said, "Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused." Take all the applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and see how many are accepted and how many refused. Most are refused. Within those three countries, Pakistan has the highest acceptance rate, Bangladesh in the middle and India the lowest. Do you see what I was saying now? Apologies if my wording was poor earlier.
That's disingenuous wording at best.
"... most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh ..." implies the majority from India, the majority from Pakistan and the majority from Bangladesh are refused. Not that the majority from that region, aggregated together, are refused.
In reality, for Pakistan after appeals the approval rate has been a [significant] majority in each of 2019 to 2022, with the current approval rate at 48% for 2023 but many still awaiting appeals so that figure likely could rise to a majority.
In 2020 and 2021 the approval rate after appeals were 66% and 65% respectively, so two-thirds. Doesn't match your claims whatsoever.
I was thinking of them as a whole, within which there is a very low acceptance rate for applicants from India, a higher but still relatively low rate for Bangladesh, and Pakistan the highest of the three at around half on initial application. I understand that my words could be interpreted to apply to each subgroup separately. My apologies for the confusion.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Please find any codified limit, or even any evidence of a de facto limit, for the amount of times that an asylum seeker in the UK can make a fresh claim.
To appeal an initial asylum decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), you need some reason for the appeal in order to be given Permission to Appeal. This has to be an error in law by the First-tier Tribunal. If you are successful in that, you can go to the Upper Tribunal. If they say no, you can go to the Court of Appeal, although this is difficult. If they say no, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, although phenomenally difficult to get through to them. That's not an indefinite line of courts you can go to.
That is a single claim, and a single process.
I am talking about an indefinite number of fresh claims that can be made by someone whose initial claim has been refused. A fresh claim that may involve providing new evidence supporting the initial claim, or something totally different.
People can make claims. You can go to a court and claim you were abducted by aliens and the Government should compensate you as many times as you want. But those claims aren't going to succeed without some basis to them.
We have an asylum system that is far from perfect, but it does turn lots of people away, many of whom then leave the country. I hope the new government can increase the speed with which final decisions are made and ensure that those who do not have a valid claim do leave. Those were both areas were the previous government performed badly.
That is not the point. Regardless of the validity of the new claim, there would still have to be due process to assess the claim. Whereupon if the claim is refused, you can appeal. Whereupon if your appeal is refused, you can make another fresh claim. So you can make fresh claims on an indefinite basis. All the while supported by a solicitor paid for by legal aid.
That is not the case in a criminal trial, so I don't see why it should be the case in an asylum claim - though you seem to think it's fine, because you raise no objection to it.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
A quick Excel chart on refusal rates going back to 2001.
One would expect refusal rates to go up and down according to the number of significant conflicts in the world. So, Afghanistan and Iraq wars would create spikes in approval rates, whereas times when the world is more at peace would result in lower approval rates.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
Your challenge is a refined one, hard to meet. How about this: The government has never said words to this effect: 'Mr Trump being president of the USA is a problem'.
Well, I don't think that's what @Casino_Royale had in mind(!), but, yes, I concede that the Government has chosen to be diplomatic in its public comments and not explicitly said what we (pace Trump's three supporters on PB) all know, that Mr Trump being president of the USA is a problem.
I'm pretty certain, however, that behind closed doors, members of the Government do express that view, probably on an hourly basis or less.
A quick Excel chart on refusal rates going back to 2001.
Its almost as if those making the first determinations (civil servants in the Home Office) were told to make more grants to get claims processed because the backlog was becoming politically embarrassing and then had to cut back on the approvals because too many were getting through. Just as well our Rolls Royce impartial civil service isn't prone to that sort of pressure, eh?
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
And their programme to deal with it?
They have increased some taxation, notably NI employers' contributions. They have tried to cut spending in some areas. I'm not flying a flag for the Labour administration. I didn't vote for them. I don't think they're doing a good job. My point is that @Casino_Royale is claiming that there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform". That seems to me to be wrong. The Government seems very aware that there are problems and they want to tackle them.
It helps to diagnose what the challenge is before you can solve it. The challenge is not Casino's persecution fantasy that the "governing elites" refuse to recognise anything he thinks is a problem.
I don’t know about an “absolute refusal”, but I’ve just been on holiday with my dear friends who hold relatively senior roles in the British judicial and administrative system.
They don’t really understand the migration (illegal or otherwise) problem, viscerally. It’s an academic issue, if anything, and a distraction from more important issues. Though what those issues are is itself not obvious.
In my not-entirely-humble opinion, this is the second largest US domestic problem: The “onrushing debt disaster”. In a recent column, George Will passes on Professor Mankiw’s five possible solutions, none of them likely in the near future. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/08/economic-fiscal-debt-crisis/
There are, he says, five ways to “stop this upward trajectory” of debt: extraordinary economic growth, government default, large-scale money creation, substantial cuts in government spending and large tax increases. The probability of each is low.
As it happens, I’m old enough so that it is unlikely our debt disaster will have much effect on me. But I feel like apologizing whenever I see a little kid, knowing the burden my generation, and the following ones, have loaded on to them.
There’s an old Peanuts cartoon, in which Lucy is complaining about the problems her generation will inherit. But she has a solution: When Linus asks her what can they do, she says “Stick the next generation.”
We are worse than she, because we are going to stick at least the next two generations.
In many ways, the US is in a worse position because of just how much debt there is that's not counted at the federal level.
At least in the UK, the vast majority of public sector debt is simply debt issued by the UK government. The amount of debt in aggregate by the towns/parishes/cities and the counties is relatively trivial.
A quick Excel chart on refusal rates going back to 2001.
One would expect refusal rates to go up and down according to the number of significant conflicts in the world. So, Afghanistan and Iraq wars would create spikes in approval rates, whereas times when the world is more at peace would result in lower approval rates.
The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.
And the Bangladeshis IIRC.
One can challenge an asylum refusal now in the courts. An indefinite number of times.
You cannot challenge an indefinite number of times, no. Even after challenges, most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are refused.
Please find any codified limit, or even any evidence of a de facto limit, for the amount of times that an asylum seeker in the UK can make a fresh claim.
To appeal an initial asylum decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), you need some reason for the appeal in order to be given Permission to Appeal. This has to be an error in law by the First-tier Tribunal. If you are successful in that, you can go to the Upper Tribunal. If they say no, you can go to the Court of Appeal, although this is difficult. If they say no, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, although phenomenally difficult to get through to them. That's not an indefinite line of courts you can go to.
That is a single claim, and a single process.
I am talking about an indefinite number of fresh claims that can be made by someone whose initial claim has been refused. A fresh claim that may involve providing new evidence supporting the initial claim, or something totally different.
People can make claims. You can go to a court and claim you were abducted by aliens and the Government should compensate you as many times as you want. But those claims aren't going to succeed without some basis to them.
We have an asylum system that is far from perfect, but it does turn lots of people away, many of whom then leave the country. I hope the new government can increase the speed with which final decisions are made and ensure that those who do not have a valid claim do leave. Those were both areas were the previous government performed badly.
That is not the point. Regardless of the validity of the new claim, there would still have to be due process to assess the claim. Whereupon if the claim is refused, you can appeal. Whereupon if your appeal is refused, you can make another fresh claim. So you can make fresh claims on an indefinite basis. All the while supported by a solicitor paid for by legal aid.
That is not the case in a criminal trial, so I don't see why it should be the case in an asylum claim - though you seem to think it's fine, because you raise no objection to it.
It's not the case in a criminal trial, no, but asylum applications are not criminal trials. It is the case in other civil matters. It's not some special exception for asylum cases.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
In my not-entirely-humble opinion, this is the second largest US domestic problem: The “onrushing debt disaster”. In a recent column, George Will passes on Professor Mankiw’s five possible solutions, none of them likely in the near future. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/08/economic-fiscal-debt-crisis/
It’s going to be inflation (largely scale money creation). And in Europe, tax rises as well.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be (and say that you can work or rent a property).
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
The additional problem is the database.
Governments are notoriously bad at looking after our data and stopping it from ending up in the wrong hands.
As a good example if anyone on here has applied for legal aid in the last 15 years you will be pleased to know your data - all of it as far as your legal aid application is concerned - ended up in the hands of hackers who threatened to release it.
And this is not an isolated case. In 2007 HMRC lost the personal details of 25 million people in receipt of child benefit. The NHS also has a terrible record of losing personal and medical data on patients.
To my mind the fewer Government agencies that have access to my data, the better.
A quick Excel chart on refusal rates going back to 2001.
One would expect refusal rates to go up and down according to the number of significant conflicts in the world. So, Afghanistan and Iraq wars would create spikes in approval rates, whereas times when the world is more at peace would result in lower approval rates.
Why would they in percentage terms?
Where asylum seekers come from changes a lot over the years. If you have a big conflict relatively nearer to the UK, e.g. conflicts in Syria and Libya, then the mix of asylum seekers will have more people from those places and more with valid asylum claims. At other times, the mix will have fewer people with valid claims, and the refusal rate should go up. So, some variation will be down to who is applying. However, other variation may be down to government policy and how decisions are taken.
Given high British public debt, which threatens the governments ability to fund growth, and low-ish British private debt, the correct fiscal strategy is to force the British public to pay privately for some public services, especially for capital investment.
Road tolls to fund motorways, just to throw up a random example.
A quick Excel chart on refusal rates going back to 2001.
One would expect refusal rates to go up and down according to the number of significant conflicts in the world. So, Afghanistan and Iraq wars would create spikes in approval rates, whereas times when the world is more at peace would result in lower approval rates.
Why would they in percentage terms?
Imagine there are 100,000 economic migrants every year who come to the UK. And imagine we realise that these guys are economic migrants 75% of the time.
If there are no wars on, and therefore no - say - flow of asylum seekers from Ukraine or Afghanistan, then you would expect a 75% refusal rate.
But if Russia invades Ukraine, and 200,000 Ukrainians arrive, and these guys have an 80% acceptance rate because they're fleeing an active warzone, then you would expect to see a spike in acceptance rates in that year.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
Wiktionary suggests it can still be used for emphasis. It seems unfair to criticise a grammatical structure that is actually correct, if archaic in standard British Engkish
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
why not just use driving licence, even if you don't drive you can get a provisional. Our lot will squander billions on a shit solution
Or alternatively, why not have an ID card say if you have a driving licence?
true , could be driving licence or an id card, be much cheaper fgiven amount who already have driving licence
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Here is an example. What about the failure to have a credible plan to put an upper limit on our continuing and future borrowing coupled with a policy reliance on debt to GDP ratio in 5 years time, the target moving forward by 12 months every year and so never reached?
(The Tories were just the same of course.)
Well, again, by all means criticise the Government's handling of borrowing levels, but they're not refusing to accept that there is a problem. They're constantly saying there is a problem.
A problem they deem sufficiently serious to dictate policy.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
How precisely am I not engaging with you? I am replying to your messages. I am putting forth discussion points. Most of what I get back is ad hominems, but I'm still engaging! I'd still love to get you to engage with the initial claim you made and give me an actual example.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that! But how am I "in charge"? There is very little in the world that I am in charge of. I guess what flavour cat food the household buys, I'm in charge of that.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
Given high British public debt, which threatens the governments ability to fund growth, and low-ish British private debt, the correct fiscal strategy is to force the British public to pay privately for some public services, especially for capital investment.
Road tolls to fund motorways, just to throw up a random example.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
Who the *uck cares? It's a word. I knew what Casino Royale meant. You did, we all did. When someone says the word "teenager" people don't say "actually that's an American English word, the correct thing to say is person aged from 13 to 19".
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
ID cards solve a problem. A single sign-on point to Government systems solves a whole set of problems.
My limits are - allowing people to look at (any) data without a valid reason or being required to carry something at all times...
The problem with ID cards and the associated database isn't a random civil servant looking up someone's details. It's government departments doing automated scans of the database to find people who match certain parameters. The government will have the capability to identify groups of people in a way they just can't at the moment.
And you will end up having to carry it. Buying a bottle of wine? ID card. Hospital treatment? ID card. Buying a new phone? ID card. Using a public toilet - tap your ID card to prove you're the right sex. Trans woman? Oops, card says you are male, can't come in here.
They will cloak it as efforts to prevent crime and protect children from undesirable stuff, but if ID cards exist they will be used to control and discriminate.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that!
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that!
Well, that's progress of sorts.
Anyway, I've got to get the kids supper.
Laterz peeps.
I look forward to engaging with you on another day! And I empathise with the struggle of having to feed other people.
Given high British public debt, which threatens the governments ability to fund growth, and low-ish British private debt, the correct fiscal strategy is to force the British public to pay privately for some public services, especially for capital investment.
Road tolls to fund motorways, just to throw up a random example.
We are in a state of denial.
I am sure that’s not a purely British ailment.
But one thing I notice about the UK is that there seems to be a single elite hive-mind, which decides what the problems are and whatever the politically acceptable solutions are.
And that hive-mind does not seem terribly worried that the country has been economically stagnant for coming on 20 years, that large parts of the country look like a dump, that the country has become progressively enshittified and less liberal in terms of “everyday lived experience”, and that public opinion is not onboard with the import of large numbers of immigrants at a culture-disrupting level. Or, if it has noticed, it’s decided the solutions are too hard.
As I’ve noted before, the U.S. is hardly in a more privileged position, but it has the benefit of a federal system and multiple, competing elites.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
Given high British public debt, which threatens the governments ability to fund growth, and low-ish British private debt, the correct fiscal strategy is to force the British public to pay privately for some public services, especially for capital investment.
Road tolls to fund motorways, just to throw up a random example.
Many would argue that they have already paid for public assets but in reality they have only paid for the designed life of an asset. To have it renewed/replaced would be seen as 'privatisation' when in reality it's the private renewal of something that is EOL or beyond. Maintaining public assets beyond their design life is simply wasting money.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
How precisely am I not engaging with you? I am replying to your messages. I am putting forth discussion points. Most of what I get back is ad hominems, but I'm still engaging! I'd still love to get you to engage with the initial claim you made and give me an actual example.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that! But how am I "in charge"? There is very little in the world that I am in charge of. I guess what flavour cat food the household buys, I'm in charge of that.
Silly comment.
As if any of us will believe your cat lets a human decide that.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be (and say that you can work or rent a property).
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
If they came in, the deal would be produce it on demand or, if they thought it was justified, turn up at a police station (if you can find one still open) and produce it within X days. No thanks.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
How precisely am I not engaging with you? I am replying to your messages. I am putting forth discussion points. Most of what I get back is ad hominems, but I'm still engaging! I'd still love to get you to engage with the initial claim you made and give me an actual example.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that! But how am I "in charge"? There is very little in the world that I am in charge of. I guess what flavour cat food the household buys, I'm in charge of that.
Silly comment.
As if any of us will believe your cat lets a human decide that.
Gotten adds something. It has a sense of motion about it. Eg on this thread, "I've gotten under your skin". That works. By contrast something such as "I've gotten the music in me". No. Not scanning.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
I had thought you were interested in a discussion. If you're just interested in "owning the libs"... well, we've seen where that's ended up in the US. Fingers crossed that the UK does not follow the same path.
Well, it will - because when people talk about "owning the libs" they're talking precisely about people like you.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
How precisely am I not engaging with you? I am replying to your messages. I am putting forth discussion points. Most of what I get back is ad hominems, but I'm still engaging! I'd still love to get you to engage with the initial claim you made and give me an actual example.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that! But how am I "in charge"? There is very little in the world that I am in charge of. I guess what flavour cat food the household buys, I'm in charge of that.
Silly comment.
As if any of us will believe your cat lets a human decide that.
Espercially after inoculating the human with will-rotting brain parasites.
Gotten adds something. It has a sense of motion about it. Eg on this thread, "I've gotten under your skin". That works. By contrast something such as "I've gotten the music in me". No. Not scanning.
To link to another conversation on this thread:
Who could forget the look of disgust on Alec Guinness' face as he delivered - with manifest reluctance - the line 'he should have stayed here and not - gotten - involved' in Star Wars?
Gotten adds something. It has a sense of motion about it. Eg on this thread, "I've gotten under your skin". That works. By contrast something such as "I've gotten the music in me". No. Not scanning.
To link to another one:
Who could forget the look of disgust on Alec Guinness' face as he delivered - with manifest reluctance - the line 'he should have stayed here and not - gotten - involved' in Star Wars?
"Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
Gotten adds something. It has a sense of motion about it. Eg on this thread, "I've gotten under your skin". That works. By contrast something such as "I've gotten the music in me". No. Not scanning.
To link to another one:
Who could forget the look of disgust on Alec Guinness' face as he delivered - with manifest reluctance - the line 'he should have stayed here and not - gotten - involved' in Star Wars?
"Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
'George, you can type this shit, but you can't act it.'
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Comments
Returns in 2024 were up, after years of decline. The top 10 countries for returns (enforced or voluntary) were:
India 7395
Albania 5505
Brazil 4850
Romania 1903
China 1333
Nigeria 1141
Pakistan 918
Poland 522
Uzbekistan 455
Honduras 403
This is hopefully an area where Labour can do better.
"... most applicants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh ..." implies the majority from India, the majority from Pakistan and the majority from Bangladesh are refused. Not that the majority from that region, aggregated together, are refused.
In reality, for Pakistan after appeals the approval rate has been a [significant] majority in each of 2019 to 2022, with the current approval rate at 48% for 2023 but many still awaiting appeals so that figure likely could rise to a majority.
In 2020 and 2021 the approval rate after appeals were 66% and 65% respectively, so two-thirds. Doesn't match your claims whatsoever.
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68a4662750939bdf2c2b5ea8/outcome-analysis-asylum-claims-datasets-jun-2024.xlsx
Outcome analysis of asylum claims detailed datasets, year ending June 2024 (MS Excel Spreadsheet, 353 KB)
Asy_D04: The initial decision and latest outcome of all asylum claims raised in a period, by nationality
Which is exactly the problem @Casino_Royale was eloquently describing. You’re a living example. You live and breathe a fantasy world of consoling fibs. It was once kind of amusing but it increasingly becomes dangerous
Weird
I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
We have an asylum system that is far from perfect, but it does turn lots of people away, many of whom then leave the country. I hope the new government can increase the speed with which final decisions are made and ensure that those who do not have a valid claim do leave. Those were both areas were the previous government performed badly.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
In my not-entirely-humble opinion, this is the second largest US domestic problem: The “onrushing debt disaster”. In a recent column, George Will passes on Professor Mankiw’s five possible solutions, none of them likely in the near future. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/08/economic-fiscal-debt-crisis/ As it happens, I’m old enough so that it is unlikely our debt disaster will have much effect on me. But I feel like apologizing whenever I see a little kid, knowing the burden my generation, and the following ones, have loaded on to them.
There’s an old Peanuts cartoon, in which Lucy is complaining about the problems her generation will inherit. But she has a solution: When Linus asks her what can they do, she says “Stick the next generation.”
We are worse than she, because we are going to stick at least the next two generations.
(Mankiw’s lecture: https://www.nber.org/research/videos/2025-17th-annual-feldstein-lecture-n-gregory-mankiw-fiscal-future )
Oh and obligatory
I say 'considered' because it was rather tricky to work out who the largest party after the Unionists were in 1918.
Given we have stories like the leaked of sensitive id info of Afghanis no less than 49 times, I don't have a lot of confidence.
Camden can be “vibrant” but this is odd. Five police cars outside Marks and Spencer. I can only presume that a shoplifter sent a racist tweet
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
ID cards solve a problem. A single sign-on point to Government systems solves a whole set of problems.
My limits are - allowing people to look at (any) data without a valid reason or being required to carry something at all times...
It helps to diagnose what the challenge is before you can solve it. The challenge is not Casino's persecution fantasy that the "governing elites" refuse to recognise anything he thinks is a problem.
WHEN WILL LEE HURST BE GIVEN HIS DUE!
https://x.com/comedyawards/status/1959226002300608913?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
That is not the case in a criminal trial, so I don't see why it should be the case in an asylum claim - though you seem to think it's fine, because you raise no objection to it.
I'm pretty certain, however, that behind closed doors, members of the Government do express that view, probably on an hourly basis or less.
They don’t really understand the migration (illegal or otherwise) problem, viscerally. It’s an academic issue, if anything, and a distraction from more important issues.
Though what those issues are is itself not obvious.
There’s an old Peanuts cartoon, in which Lucy is complaining about the problems her generation will inherit. But she has a solution: When Linus asks her what can they do, she says “Stick the next generation.”
We are worse than she, because we are going to stick at least the next two generations.
(Mankiw’s lecture: https://www.nber.org/research/videos/2025-17th-annual-feldstein-lecture-n-gregory-mankiw-fiscal-future )
In many ways, the US is in a worse position because of just how much debt there is that's not counted at the federal level.
At least in the UK, the vast majority of public sector debt is simply debt issued by the UK government. The amount of debt in aggregate by the towns/parishes/cities and the counties is relatively trivial.
Because you won't engage with, empathise with or even attempt to understand the central point you end up utterly infuriating them. You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge - so the only political satisfaction they have is to "own" you. Of course, you won't recognise any of this - your total lack of self-awareness being symbolic of your kind - because you lack any humility to recognise that you might not have possibly got all of this right.
And, so, you get owned.
And in Europe, tax rises as well.
Governments are notoriously bad at looking after our data and stopping it from ending up in the wrong hands.
As a good example if anyone on here has applied for legal aid in the last 15 years you will be pleased to know your data - all of it as far as your legal aid application is concerned - ended up in the hands of hackers who threatened to release it.
https://therecord.media/uk-legal-aid-agency-data-breach
And this is not an isolated case. In 2007 HMRC lost the personal details of 25 million people in receipt of child benefit. The NHS also has a terrible record of losing personal and medical data on patients.
To my mind the fewer Government agencies that have access to my data, the better.
Road tolls to fund motorways, just to throw up a random example.
If there are no wars on, and therefore no - say - flow of asylum seekers from Ukraine or Afghanistan, then you would expect a 75% refusal rate.
But if Russia invades Ukraine, and 200,000 Ukrainians arrive, and these guys have an 80% acceptance rate because they're fleeing an active warzone, then you would expect to see a spike in acceptance rates in that year.
Raven. Let me get close enough with the iPhone to snap this, albeit zoomed in.
The British state, contra generally received opinion, is inherently illiberal, because public opinion is.
Also, I'm not certain why you say, "You're seen as pompous, arrogant and condescending and yet remain, inexplicably, in charge"? I mean, I am "pompous, arrogant and condescending". Can't deny that! But how am I "in charge"? There is very little in the world that I am in charge of. I guess what flavour cat food the household buys, I'm in charge of that.
Language evolves.
And you will end up having to carry it. Buying a bottle of wine? ID card. Hospital treatment? ID card. Buying a new phone? ID card. Using a public toilet - tap your ID card to prove you're the right sex. Trans woman? Oops, card says you are male, can't come in here.
They will cloak it as efforts to prevent crime and protect children from undesirable stuff, but if ID cards exist they will be used to control and discriminate.
Anyway, I've got to get the kids supper.
Laterz peeps.
But one thing I notice about the UK is that there seems to be a single elite hive-mind, which decides what the problems are and whatever the politically acceptable solutions are.
And that hive-mind does not seem terribly worried that the country has been economically stagnant for coming on 20 years, that large parts of the country look like a dump, that the country has become progressively enshittified and less liberal in terms of “everyday lived experience”, and that public opinion is not onboard with the import of large numbers of immigrants at a culture-disrupting level. Or, if it has noticed, it’s decided the solutions are too hard.
As I’ve noted before, the U.S. is hardly in a more privileged position, but it has the benefit of a federal system and multiple, competing elites.
Britain’s rogue intellectual has predicted a civil war. Is he also cheerleading one?
By John Merrick"
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/08/rage-of-dominic-cummings
Almost everyone has been driven mad by our modern condition (and social media), and Cummings has been driven the maddest.
East of Land's End on the path to Porthgwarra is a good spot if ever n the extreme west of Cornwall.
Or South Stack on Anglesey.
As if any of us will believe your cat lets a human decide that.
Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1959288203027915233
@nazirafzal
You can be recalled to prison if you breach the conditions of release
https://x.com/nazirafzal/status/1959255918987653498
Edit: Bah, you're all too quick for me.
Who could forget the look of disgust on Alec Guinness' face as he delivered - with manifest reluctance - the line 'he should have stayed here and not - gotten - involved' in Star Wars?
(That was Harrison Ford.)
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/22/scotland-james-stole-english-crown/