So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
This again comes back to my argument about the polling on the Reform deportation plans which was also a header on here a couple of days back.
There does appear to be a pattern that specific Reform talking points and policies etc have minority appeal when polled; but yet Reform are doing pretty well in VI all things considered. I still think a large part of the next GE is going to come down to ‘feels’ for want of a better word, and if people stick with the mainstream for fear of something worse or feel so fed up they want to roll the dice on something new.
Reform are top of the heap, but it's not that impressive a heap by historical standards. John Major got 31% and a landslide defeat in 1997.
About a third of the electorate are currently full-on Faragists. It's what the other two thirds do that matter. Are they going to let him in, or put a lot of pegs on a lot of noses at the next election?
The figures that count are the respective proportions that vote right, and vote left. So long as the right wing vote is c.48%, and so long as Reform are winning the majority of that vote, it's hard to see how they don't finish with a plurality, at least, in seats.
Correct on the latter, on the former though if you got say Tories 24% and Reform 24% and Labour 26% then Labour could still win most seats under FPTP and Starmer stay PM in a hung parliament with LD, SNP, Plaid and Green support despite 48% voting Tory and Reform UK wide. Plus the Tories and Reform probably winning most seats combined in England
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
You get the dissonance nicely shown in some of the Philip Kerr cycle of novels about Bernie Gunther - especially during Gunther's service on the Eastern Front. The contrast with the respect for the law and what was happening ...
As a young man, one quote that had a profound impact on me and made me a Conservative and makes me recoil from the modern day Tory party is this one, Mrs Thatcher would be disgusted at the modern day Tory party.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
It is Tories who took this to court, Reform just backed the protests.
There will be another court case in October which will decide if the use of the hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers is a material change of use from its being a hotel such that the council will then be able to block it having planning permission
I find it odd that supposedly free market types who would like to see swathers of regulations abolished seem to want to restrict the ability of a private company to conduct business with whomever it likes.
If I want to block book a hotel for my family and friends for a weekend, I believe that is allowed. If I want to stay in a hotel indefinitely, I think that is allowed too - is there any restriction on the number of days I can stay consecutively before I'm deemed to be a permanent resident? Does it matter? I think the Major was a resident at Fawlty Towers, has there been a change since the 70s? Assuming it is legal to block book a hotel, and stay indefinitely, why shouldn't both be allowed? I don't see why that should be a planning issue.
I would have thought, in any case, that a Hotel was generally more detrimental to an area than an HMO. I can say this as someone who has lived in a road with both - there was certainly more noise and activity from the hotel than from any of the HMOs. And if the bar is no longer open, that is an improvement too. The only objection seems to be the people who are staying there, which in my opinion should be nobody's business except the proprietor's.
Those who are most hostile to asylum seekers and immigrants tend to be nationalist rightwingers or traditional conservatives, not liberal or libertarian free marketeers. See also the tensions between Musk, Ramaswamay and the Tech Bros who want skilled migrants and MAGA's white nationalists.
Using home office funds to become effectively a migrant hostel not a hotel also effectively makes you a public sector body no longer a private company needing bills from paying members of the public rather than taxpayer funds to remain open
If it was just Reform, then I might agree with you (but aren't quite a chunk of them supposedly libertarian anti-regulation types, hence Brexit)? However, all the Tories seem to be opposing this despite it being their policy, and also supposedly being the party of free market economics.
Actually I have never thought the Tories were free marketeers much, they believe in state intervention as much as socialists do, just of a different kind of interference.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
You get the dissonance nicely shown in some of the Philip Kerr cycle of novels about Bernie Gunther - especially during Gunther's service on the Eastern Front. The contrast with the respect for the law and what was happening ...
As a young man, one quote that had a profound impact on me and made me a Conservative and makes me recoil from the modern day Tory party is this one, Mrs Thatcher would be disgusted at the modern day Tory party.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
It is Tories who took this to court, Reform just backed the protests.
There will be another court case in October which will decide if the use of the hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers is a material change of use from its being a hotel such that the council will then be able to block it having planning permission
You seem to misunderstand the law
The question is whether planning is needed for the change of use and if the court decides it is then the planning department will need to consider the issue and impose any restrictions if they are compatible with the planning law
It does not follow Epping can block the planning just they would need to make a planning decision
It hasn't been decided if its housing asylum seekers is a change of use yet from its role as a hotel before, if the court does decide that then yes planning permission would be needed from the Council and the planning cttee could refuse it
At which point the Home Secretary calls in the decision.
If they were really smart they would approve it subject to agreeing a section 106. And then drag their feet on agreeing the details
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
You get the dissonance nicely shown in some of the Philip Kerr cycle of novels about Bernie Gunther - especially during Gunther's service on the Eastern Front. The contrast with the respect for the law and what was happening ...
As a young man, one quote that had a profound impact on me and made me a Conservative and makes me recoil from the modern day Tory party is this one, Mrs Thatcher would be disgusted at the modern day Tory party.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
It is Tories who took this to court, Reform just backed the protests.
There will be another court case in October which will decide if the use of the hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers is a material change of use from its being a hotel such that the council will then be able to block it having planning permission
I find it odd that supposedly free market types who would like to see swathers of regulations abolished seem to want to restrict the ability of a private company to conduct business with whomever it likes.
If I want to block book a hotel for my family and friends for a weekend, I believe that is allowed. If I want to stay in a hotel indefinitely, I think that is allowed too - is there any restriction on the number of days I can stay consecutively before I'm deemed to be a permanent resident? Does it matter? I think the Major was a resident at Fawlty Towers, has there been a change since the 70s? Assuming it is legal to block book a hotel, and stay indefinitely, why shouldn't both be allowed? I don't see why that should be a planning issue.
I would have thought, in any case, that a Hotel was generally more detrimental to an area than an HMO. I can say this as someone who has lived in a road with both - there was certainly more noise and activity from the hotel than from any of the HMOs. And if the bar is no longer open, that is an improvement too. The only objection seems to be the people who are staying there, which in my opinion should be nobody's business except the proprietor's.
Those who are most hostile to asylum seekers and immigrants tend to be nationalist rightwingers or traditional conservatives, not liberal or libertarian free marketeers. See also the tensions between Musk, Ramaswamay and the Tech Bros who want skilled migrants and MAGA's white nationalists.
Using home office funds to become effectively a migrant hostel not a hotel also effectively makes you a public sector body no longer a private company needing bills from paying members of the public rather than taxpayer funds to remain open
If it was just Reform, then I might agree with you (but aren't quite a chunk of them supposedly libertarian anti-regulation types, hence Brexit)? However, all the Tories seem to be opposing this despite it being their policy, and also supposedly being the party of free market economics.
Actually I have never thought the Tories were free marketeers much, they believe in state intervention as much as socialists do, just of a different kind of interference.
The Tories shut hotels like the Bell last year.
The Liberal wing of the LDs is historically the most free market of the main parties, the Conservatives are more free market than Labour, the Greens and arguably Reform now too but in the 19th and early 20th century there were plenty of protectionist anti free trade Tories like Disraeli (initially), Derby, Baldwin and the Chamberlains
This again comes back to my argument about the polling on the Reform deportation plans which was also a header on here a couple of days back.
There does appear to be a pattern that specific Reform talking points and policies etc have minority appeal when polled; but yet Reform are doing pretty well in VI all things considered. I still think a large part of the next GE is going to come down to ‘feels’ for want of a better word, and if people stick with the mainstream for fear of something worse or feel so fed up they want to roll the dice on something new.
Reform are top of the heap, but it's not that impressive a heap by historical standards. John Major got 31% and a landslide defeat in 1997.
About a third of the electorate are currently full-on Faragists. It's what the other two thirds do that matter. Are they going to let him in, or put a lot of pegs on a lot of noses at the next election?
What wouldn't we give for John Major, now?
Major would not in his wildest dreams have thought he would be second longest serving PM for the next 28 years when he lost by a landslide in 1997. Nor that his successor, who would be the only PM to serve longer than him, would end up reviled over a war in Iraq, whereas his war in the same nation ended up a great victory and popular and removed Saddam from Kuwait
I don't think Coalition forces crossed the Iraq/Kuwait border did they?
Clegg and Cammo had more than enough on their hands back at home
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
You get the dissonance nicely shown in some of the Philip Kerr cycle of novels about Bernie Gunther - especially during Gunther's service on the Eastern Front. The contrast with the respect for the law and what was happening ...
As a young man, one quote that had a profound impact on me and made me a Conservative and makes me recoil from the modern day Tory party is this one, Mrs Thatcher would be disgusted at the modern day Tory party.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
It is Tories who took this to court, Reform just backed the protests.
There will be another court case in October which will decide if the use of the hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers is a material change of use from its being a hotel such that the council will then be able to block it having planning permission
You seem to misunderstand the law
The question is whether planning is needed for the change of use and if the court decides it is then the planning department will need to consider the issue and impose any restrictions if they are compatible with the planning law
It does not follow Epping can block the planning just they would need to make a planning decision
It hasn't been decided if its housing asylum seekers is a change of use yet from its role as a hotel before, if the court does decide that then yes planning permission would be needed from the Council and the planning cttee could refuse it
At which point the Home Secretary calls in the decision.
If they were really smart they would approve it subject to agreeing a section 106. And then drag their feet on agreeing the details
The hotel company probably has the funds to meet a s106 requirement though
This again comes back to my argument about the polling on the Reform deportation plans which was also a header on here a couple of days back.
There does appear to be a pattern that specific Reform talking points and policies etc have minority appeal when polled; but yet Reform are doing pretty well in VI all things considered. I still think a large part of the next GE is going to come down to ‘feels’ for want of a better word, and if people stick with the mainstream for fear of something worse or feel so fed up they want to roll the dice on something new.
Reform are top of the heap, but it's not that impressive a heap by historical standards. John Major got 31% and a landslide defeat in 1997.
About a third of the electorate are currently full-on Faragists. It's what the other two thirds do that matter. Are they going to let him in, or put a lot of pegs on a lot of noses at the next election?
The figures that count are the respective proportions that vote right, and vote left. So long as the right wing vote is c.48%, and so long as Reform are winning the majority of that vote, it's hard to see how they don't finish with a plurality, at least, in seats.
Mathematically it doesn’t happen if the Tories and Reform come first and second in a shedload of seats, like mine, and in the centre left leaning seats, voters get behind whichever of Labour or the LibDems (or Green or nationalist) is best placed to win.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
You get the dissonance nicely shown in some of the Philip Kerr cycle of novels about Bernie Gunther - especially during Gunther's service on the Eastern Front. The contrast with the respect for the law and what was happening ...
As a young man, one quote that had a profound impact on me and made me a Conservative and makes me recoil from the modern day Tory party is this one, Mrs Thatcher would be disgusted at the modern day Tory party.
‘The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’
It is Tories who took this to court, Reform just backed the protests.
There will be another court case in October which will decide if the use of the hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers is a material change of use from its being a hotel such that the council will then be able to block it having planning permission
You seem to misunderstand the law
The question is whether planning is needed for the change of use and if the court decides it is then the planning department will need to consider the issue and impose any restrictions if they are compatible with the planning law
It does not follow Epping can block the planning just they would need to make a planning decision
It hasn't been decided if its housing asylum seekers is a change of use yet from its role as a hotel before, if the court does decide that then yes planning permission would be needed from the Council and the planning cttee could refuse it
At which point the Home Secretary calls in the decision.
If they were really smart they would approve it subject to agreeing a section 106. And then drag their feet on agreeing the details
The hotel company probably has the funds to meet a s106 requirement though
Yes. But it is a legal document that has to be negotiated and has no time restrictions on how long that takes…
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
It also doesn't really make sense: is the Embassy/Consulate supposed to take in the applicant there and then? Embassies are not typically designed to have people living in them.
And if the answer is no, then how would it work? Does HMG become responsible for getting the applicant to the UK?
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
I am generally comfortable with immigration (and emigration) which is why freedom of movement was fine by me. Although I can see that low skilled labour (poorly paid teachers leaving Poland to become better paid binmen for example) from the accession countries were mismanaged by the Blair Government leading directly to Brexit. Mr Johnson's legal immigration post 2019 (to provide enough people to fill highly skilled gaps in the Labour market) on the other hand was an almost entirety positive enterprise.
Creating a legal route to acquire asylum seeker status would stop the boats overnight.
Do you mean the would-be immigrants could simply buy a ticket for the train or ferry?
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
LAURA “LOW RATINGS” INGRAHAM ON FOX HAS A TERRIBLE CASE OF NEWSOM DERANGEMENT SYNDROME (NDS!). THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOVE ME, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, AMERICA’S FAVORITE GOVERNOR!!! FOX SHOULD CANCEL LAURA IMMEDIATELY — OR FACE HUGE “CONSEQUENCES!!!” THANK YOU! — GCN https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1961279507475959887
Maintaining a pretty decent level of quality trolling.
The MAGA crew still can't get themselves to admit he's taking the piss as opposed to just imitating.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
It also doesn't really make sense: is the Embassy/Consulate supposed to take in the applicant there and then? Embassies are not typically designed to have people living in them.
And if the answer is no, then how would it work? Does HMG become responsible for getting the applicant to the UK?
Presumably they would give them a document to present to the airline.
Cameron’s best policy was setting a number of asylum applicants from Syria and then selecting them from the camps
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
I think it was much too harsh and the Appeal Court should have intervened, whatever the motivation of the Judge at first instance. And I would never vote Reform so I don't know what that does to your theory.
I also thought it was harsh and wouldn't vote Reform.
However, that isn't actually what the Court of Appeal were deciding. They were deciding whether the original sentence was within the sentencing guidelines or whether the trial judge had got the law wrong in that respect. That's a rather different decision from whether they'd have come up with the exact same sentence.
What I think is a little unfortunate for Connolly is she was actually too ready to accept at first instance that her behaviour fell into category A (intention to incite serious violence) where the bare minimum is two years and the starting point is three years (and actually she got that down a bit via mitigation). They tried to row it back on appeal - but I think it had actually been an agreed fact by the prosecution and defence at the original sentencing, and the evidence was that her barrister had warned her (and she'd had plenty of time - this was weeks into the investigation).
Basically, if you admit things too early to bring matters to a close, it's incredibly hard to row it back later.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Not really, the policy could have a numbers cap and a requirement both to prove eligibility and a link to Britain.
It could also be grounds for refusal if an irregular arrival had been refused asylum at a consulate, or even had failed to apply in Paris/Brussels etc.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
I think it was much too harsh and the Appeal Court should have intervened, whatever the motivation of the Judge at first instance. And I would never vote Reform so I don't know what that does to your theory.
I also thought it was harsh and wouldn't vote Reform.
However, that isn't actually what the Court of Appeal were deciding. They were deciding whether the original sentence was within the sentencing guidelines or whether the trial judge had got the law wrong in that respect. That's a rather different decision from whether they'd have come up with the exact same sentence.
What I think is a little unfortunate for Connolly is she was actually too ready to accept at first instance that her behaviour fell into category A (intention to incite serious violence) where the bare minimum is two years and the starting point is three years (and actually she got that down a bit via mitigation). They tried to row it back on appeal - but I think it had actually been an agreed fact by the prosecution and defence at the original sentencing, and the evidence was that her barrister had warned her (and she'd had plenty of time - this was weeks into the investigation).
Basically, if you admit things too early to bring matters to a close, it's incredibly hard to row it back later.
Indeed. There is a good argument that "I don't care if..." is not inciting violence. She needed better lawyers, much as it pains me to say that
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
I think it was much too harsh and the Appeal Court should have intervened, whatever the motivation of the Judge at first instance. And I would never vote Reform so I don't know what that does to your theory.
I also thought it was harsh and wouldn't vote Reform.
However, that isn't actually what the Court of Appeal were deciding. They were deciding whether the original sentence was within the sentencing guidelines or whether the trial judge had got the law wrong in that respect. That's a rather different decision from whether they'd have come up with the exact same sentence.
What I think is a little unfortunate for Connolly is she was actually too ready to accept at first instance that her behaviour fell into category A (intention to incite serious violence) where the bare minimum is two years and the starting point is three years (and actually she got that down a bit via mitigation). They tried to row it back on appeal - but I think it had actually been an agreed fact by the prosecution and defence at the original sentencing, and the evidence was that her barrister had warned her (and she'd had plenty of time - this was weeks into the investigation).
Basically, if you admit things too early to bring matters to a close, it's incredibly hard to row it back later.
Indeed. There is a good argument that "I don't care if..." is not inciting violence. She needed better lawyers, much as it pains me to say that
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
Freisler of course ended up being killed by allied bombers when he did not go to the shelter early enough during an air raid and stayed to pick up some files
There's a moral in there somewhere.
You know, saturation bombing of the Inns of Court might be a winning policy.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Keep it there, though. There's a Beer Festival some 30 or so miles away (as the crow flies) that I plan to visit. And there'll be quite a few of my friends and fellow townsfolk drinking there too.
As loathe as I am To stereotype unless they do carling or Madri I think you won’t be troubled
It's mainly local beers usually. Colchester Brewery and the local Wharf Brewery, and the like.
sounds like a good day out regardless of weather OKC
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Not really, the policy could have a numbers cap and a requirement both to prove eligibility and a link to Britain.
It could also be grounds for refusal if an irregular arrival had been refused asylum at a consulate, or even had failed to apply in Paris/Brussels etc.
The minute you have cap then you have people trying to get around it. The US Diversity Visa hasn't ended illegal immigration.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
That sounds like the sort of proposal that Starmer would accept from the French
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
The Leicester hotel housing asylum seekers has a lot of reviews from before it's current use. Many mention bed bugs and rats, but perhaps wildlife experiences are part of the 4* hotel experience.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
Judge Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election wing of 2029.
You heard it here first!
She’d be the worse judge since Roland Freisler.
The disturbing thing about Freisler - and other Nazi jurists - is that they were all highly qualified. He had a doctorate in law, from a good university. Which in turn, made it very easy for many of them to move seamlessly back into civilian life at the war's end.
Remember that bit in Conspiracy, when Klopfer asks how many lawyers are present, and more than half raise their hands.
About 20 years ago I read an interview with a documentary maker and he was planning on doing a dramatisation of the People’s Court after the July 20th plot but decided not to because when they read the transcripts they thought the audience would assume scenes like this were an exaggeration.
At one point, Freisler yelled at Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, who was trying to hold up his trousers after being purposely given old, oversized and beltless clothing: "You dirty old man, why do you keep fiddling with your trousers?"
Freisler of course ended up being killed by allied bombers when he did not go to the shelter early enough during an air raid and stayed to pick up some files
There's a moral in there somewhere.
You know, saturation bombing of the Inns of Court might be a winning policy.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
And not allow any men in, as they are clearly not being persecuted.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me before, but I'm amused by the fact that Farage and Reform are campaigning under a turquoise (i.e. Turkish) banner
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
Afghan women are probably less of a security risk than the menfolk, but it would be very silly to assume that as a group they are longing to throw off the niquab and embrace Western values.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
At the moment it's extremely difficult for anyone other than able-bodied young men to claim asylum in the UK. If we're prepared to accept x asylum seekers per year, then it surely makes sense to select from those who most deserve asylum rather than from those who manage to make it across the channel (the aforementioned young men). That means rejecting all (or almost all) those who arrive by boat but also accepting the x most deserving cases of those who apply by the legal means that don't currently exist.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
It's hardly less nuanced than the average poll of this type. Agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure. Not exactly Goebbels.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
It does. Because where do you think they'll go when they're rejected. The harsh reality is the demand for places in the UK, and indeed in Europe massively outweighs the level which Jo public will accept, whatever the reason. And really we should stop the absurd pretence that most migrants are fleeing persecution. Many, possibly most, are economic migrants.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
I am generally comfortable with immigration (and emigration) which is why freedom of movement was fine by me. Although I can see that low skilled labour (poorly paid teachers leaving Poland to become better paid binmen for example) from the accession countries were mismanaged by the Blair Government leading directly to Brexit. Mr Johnson's legal immigration post 2019 (to provide enough people to fill highly skilled gaps in the Labour market) on the other hand was an almost entirety positive enterprise.
Creating a legal route to acquire asylum seeker status would stop the boats overnight.
Do you mean the would-be immigrants could simply buy a ticket for the train or ferry?
A legal application in France with adjudication before entry.
A free for all would make the Starmerwave of the last five years look fairly tame.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
Afghanistan already has a population pyramid with more men than women. It doesn’t seem to have been that moderating.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
Why would there be more "free money" in the UK when we have a less generous welfare system than most other European countries? I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
It's hardly less nuanced than the average poll of this type. Agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure. Not exactly Goebbels.
I'm not really sure what you just tried to say, but I feel that you agree that the poll is bent, you're just telling me not to have a cow about it. That's fine - I am not letting it ruin my evening, but it is still a bent poll, and obviously so. And there is limited usefulness in a polling company that does this to intervene in debates - because why would one ever trust any of their polls?
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
It reminds me about all the very sad stories and anecdotes I heard over the years since the Brexit vote about family rifts based on leave/remain. In my own personal circle I am pleased to say that it feels like a lot of those rifts have now healed, but it was exceptionally raw for a lot of people.
Politics can be very dividing, particularly in this age of culture wars. I do try very hard to try not to let personal politics divide friendships - I know and am good friends (or family) with a lot of people I know or suspect are very attuned to more populist right politics, just as I have a lot of people close to me in the opposite camp. It can be hard to navigate some of the politics at times, but I do try to accept differences in opinion.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
The Leicester hotel housing asylum seekers has a lot of reviews from before it's current use. Many mention bed bugs and rats, but perhaps wildlife experiences are part of the 4* hotel experience.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
Why would there be more "free money" in the UK when we have a less generous welfare system than most other European countries? I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
Yes, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. You just need to think: where would I go if forced to flee the UK? Somewhere where you can speak the language, know somebody and have a chance of finding work. Pretty obviously.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
My aging parents (dad 90 next month) are Reform/Trump supporters. I still drop by, take them for appointments etc. Just steer clear of politics.
They both were Liberal Conservatives, my mum a John Major fan and well travelled, indeed have many international friends, and even 3 dual national grandchildren, but have disappeared politically down a rabbit hole. At least I managed to keep them away from anti-vaxxism, as they were in their eighties when covid it and both medically vulnerable. If they had caught it in 2020/21 I would likely be an orphan
They should be all over the airwaves with stuff like this, rather than being on the defensive. Leaving aside views on their asylum policy, they can absolutely batter the Tories on this issue, and yes they do play the "blame the last lot" game, but nowhere near as strongly as they could on this topic.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I’ve got friends who I know vote Tory and some who I suspect would be voting for Reform because of the boats . Political differences of opinion in the UK are quite different to what’s going on in the USA . I have a few younger cousins who like Trump , we still get on okay as long as we don’t talk about politics but I think it’s different if you’re living in the USA where the Trump fans are like a cult and his actions can effect people around you negatively.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
My aging parents (dad 90 next month) are Reform/Trump supporters. I still drop by, take them for appointments etc. Just steer clear of politics.
They both were Liberal Conservatives, my mum a John Major fan and well travelled, indeed have many international friends, and even 3 dual national grandchildren, but have disappeared politically down a rabbit hole. At least I managed to keep them away from anti-vaxxism, as they were in their eighties when covid it and both medically vulnerable. If they had caught it in 2020/21 I would likely be an orphan
My parents were both SDP/Lib Dem voters back in the 80s and 90s (though my mother has since admitted voting for Maggie in '79) but have been moving ever increasingly right since the mid 00s. I was a bit afraid they would get on board with Trumpian politics, but they seem to inhabit a place now where they think Trump is malign, Farage is awful, Starmer is a catastrophe, and Kemi is useless. So goodness knows where they'll end up politically at the next GE.
Has a chance, I think. Age is catching up with Novak now.
About a 10% chance, which is what I just grabbed on Betfair.
Not expecting a win.
That's a good bet imo.
Bit annoyed it’s midnight tbh as would have watched if earlier.
Ah is it. No, I won't be watching it then.
Do you give anyone bar SinAlc a realistic chance in this one?
At the moment every slam starts with an expectation that one of those two will win it. So no. However at some point one of them will have a bad match/injury etc and then someone might have a sniff.
But generally I cover those two for the win and sit back.
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
It's hardly less nuanced than the average poll of this type. Agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure. Not exactly Goebbels.
I'm not really sure what you just tried to say, but I feel that you agree that the poll is bent, you're just telling me not to have a cow about it. That's fine - I am not letting it ruin my evening, but it is still a bent poll, and obviously so. And there is limited usefulness in a polling company that does this to intervene in debates - because why would one ever trust any of their polls?
I'm saying it's a fairly bog standard polling question and you're seeing conspiracies that aren't there. I don't know what's come over you.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
Afghanistan already has a population pyramid with more men than women. It doesn’t seem to have been that moderating.
Actually, an army of low status, brainwashed incels who’ve been taught that the only way they’ll ever feel the touch of a woman is death in Jihad feels like possibly the worst possible outcome we could archieve.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
Why would there be more "free money" in the UK when we have a less generous welfare system than most other European countries? I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
I have a numbers of Syrian, Iraqi, Sudanese, Zimbabwean and Burmese friends, who are refugees in all but name, having arrived on other forms of visa, mostly to work in health care. They all have a formidable work ethics, and very grateful that we gave them the opportunity to live free.
They should be all over the airwaves with stuff like this, rather than being on the defensive. Leaving aside views on their asylum policy, they can absolutely batter the Tories on this issue, and yes they do play the "blame the last lot" game, but nowhere near as strongly as they could on this topic.
What hay can Labour make with this realistically? Do they think the hotels are bad, therefore attack Jenrick for (alledgedly) accelerating their adoption, or are they trying to defend the use of hotels and do a 'you thought it was a good idea then and you were right' sort of PMQs gotcha moment. Both of those seem fraught with peril.
The fact is, people hate the hotels and want their occupants sent home. Labour aren't doing that (yet) so they don't have a hand they can play.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
Why would there be more "free money" in the UK when we have a less generous welfare system than most other European countries? I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
I have a numbers of Syrian, Iraqi, Sudanese, Zimbabwean and Burmese friends, who are refugees in all but name, having arrived on other forms of visa, mostly to work in health care. They all have a formidable work ethics, and very grateful that we gave them the opportunity to live free.
I think most in the country welcome them. But many suspect that the ones in Calais and crossing small boats are NOT of the same calibre.
And this is the fundamental issue. Most of us know at least one refugee. But the perception of those in the small boats is different from these people, whether rightly or wrongly.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
Good to hear. At this point if you're supporting Trump you have to be either stupid or malign. Like I say, I wouldn't drop anyone on principle over this but I just can't imagine anyone I'm actually friends with buying into this stuff. There are probably people who I'm friendly with as opposed to actual friends who might see Trump as the "lesser of two evils" because they're against the liberal left. I'm not going to stop speaking to them. But I can't imagine someone in that camp being a real friend. Trumpism isn't really a political philosophy in my opinion, it's more a statement about someone's entire personality. It suggests something fundamentally off about them - that they can tolerate the cruelty, the bullying, the lying, the ignorance, the vulgarity, the utter absence of anything decent and human and kind. I just don't see myself gelling with someone like that. And I have had friends who are conservative Republicans in the past, who were not like that at all.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
My aging parents (dad 90 next month) are Reform/Trump supporters. I still drop by, take them for appointments etc. Just steer clear of politics.
They both were Liberal Conservatives, my mum a John Major fan and well travelled, indeed have many international friends, and even 3 dual national grandchildren, but have disappeared politically down a rabbit hole. At least I managed to keep them away from anti-vaxxism, as they were in their eighties when covid it and both medically vulnerable. If they had caught it in 2020/21 I would likely be an orphan
My parents were both SDP/Lib Dem voters back in the 80s and 90s (though my mother has since admitted voting for Maggie in '79) but have been moving ever increasingly right since the mid 00s. I was a bit afraid they would get on board with Trumpian politics, but they seem to inhabit a place now where they think Trump is malign, Farage is awful, Starmer is a catastrophe, and Kemi is useless. So goodness knows where they'll end up politically at the next GE.
To be fair, that is a median UK voter position, which is why the next GE is very much up for grabs.
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
Good to hear. At this point if you're supporting Trump you have to be either stupid or malign. Like I say, I wouldn't drop anyone on principle over this but I just can't imagine anyone I'm actually friends with buying into this stuff. There are probably people who I'm friendly with as opposed to actual friends who might see Trump as the "lesser of two evils" because they're against the liberal left. I'm not going to stop speaking to them. But I can't imagine someone in that camp being a real friend. Trumpism isn't really a political philosophy in my opinion, it's more a statement about someone's entire personality. It suggests something fundamentally off about them - that they can tolerate the cruelty, the bullying, the lying, the ignorance, the vulgarity, the utter absence of anything decent and human and kind. I just don't see myself gelling with someone like that. And I have had friends who are conservative Republicans in the past, who were not like that at all.
A very interesting thread of someone thinking through all the questions, over on Buildhub - some unexpected things are mentioned, such as putting batteries in an unheated garage having an impact on capacity, and Tesla switching to a lower fire-risk chemistry for Powerwall 3 A decent place to start for anyone interested.
I read all the discussions here on solar. Sometimes they are far beyond my understanding but it's all very useful.
I think I have noticed a big change in recommendations over 3 years, and it's because of battery technology improving perhaps.
Context. Converting a barn. 19m x 19m. plus a garage 14 x9. We think that panels on the SW face of the garage roof is perhaps sufficient. 70m2 of roof, say 60m2 of panels? No shading. A gable faces SE but vertical panels seem to be out of fashion again. On the garage will mean it is all easy to access for installation, inspection and cleaning. Heating will be air source: 2 units attached to the house. We have 3 phase supply if that is relevant. All the switchgear will be in the garage, then it's 15m to the house. The garage can remain unheated. Have had an initial consultation from a supplier..... https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/45027-very-basic-questions-about-solar-starting-now-if-you-dont-mind/
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Yes, I phrased that badly. What I meant is that if it was known that getting into Britain is rather difficult, but there was a way to do it from home, and crossing the Channel wouldn't help, that would seem to me a workable solution.
A very interesting thread of someone thinking through all the questions, over on Buildhub - some unexpected things are mentioned, such as putting batteries in an unheated garage having an impact on capacity, and Tesla switching to a lower fire-risk chemistry for Powerwall 3 A decent place to start for anyone interested.
LFP, presumably ? It's also a significantly cheaper chemistry, with greater longevity.
Damn, just seen that Emma Raducanu has been knocked out of the US Open.
A shame. She’s been doing much better of late though. I still have hopes that given her age she’s going to have a magnificent renaissance at some point and be top of the game for a while.
Wonder what the polling would be if you said “would you support or oppose requiring landlords to pay National Insurance on rental income, knowing that the cost of this is in most instances going to be passed through to tenants in rent increases?”
Comments
Actually I have never thought the Tories were free marketeers much, they believe in state intervention as much as socialists do, just of a different kind of interference.
If they were really smart they would approve it subject to agreeing a section 106. And then drag their feet on agreeing the details
The Liberal wing of the LDs is historically the most free market of the main parties, the Conservatives are more free market than Labour, the Greens and arguably Reform now too but in the 19th and early 20th century there were plenty of protectionist anti free trade Tories like Disraeli (initially), Derby, Baldwin and the Chamberlains
And if the answer is no, then how would it work? Does HMG become responsible for getting the applicant to the UK?
I miss the guy. He had a unique take on everything
Real shame he’s gone
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1961279507475959887
Maintaining a pretty decent level of quality trolling.
The MAGA crew still can't get themselves to admit he's taking the piss as opposed to just imitating.
LOW IQ is what I say.
Cameron’s best policy was setting a number of asylum applicants from Syria and then selecting them from the camps
You should try it.
However, that isn't actually what the Court of Appeal were deciding. They were deciding whether the original sentence was within the sentencing guidelines or whether the trial judge had got the law wrong in that respect. That's a rather different decision from whether they'd have come up with the exact same sentence.
What I think is a little unfortunate for Connolly is she was actually too ready to accept at first instance that her behaviour fell into category A (intention to incite serious violence) where the bare minimum is two years and the starting point is three years (and actually she got that down a bit via mitigation). They tried to row it back on appeal - but I think it had actually been an agreed fact by the prosecution and defence at the original sentencing, and the evidence was that her barrister had warned her (and she'd had plenty of time - this was weeks into the investigation).
Basically, if you admit things too early to bring matters to a close, it's incredibly hard to row it back later.
Just not commenting any more. Shame
It could also be grounds for refusal if an irregular arrival had been refused asylum at a consulate, or even had failed to apply in Paris/Brussels etc.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Alacaraz just streamrollered another.
Not expecting a win.
BobbyJ was not happy about it; I think it came from the Turquoise Corner.
He's suddenly very upset about video-clips that do not .. er .. meet his editorial standards. (Cough. Choke. Splutter.)
Original here: https://news.sky.com/story/did-robert-jenrick-really-boast-about-opening-hotels-for-asylum-seekers-13415335
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
A free for all would make the Starmerwave of the last five years look fairly tame.
I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
Politics can be very dividing, particularly in this age of culture wars. I do try very hard to try not to let personal politics divide friendships - I know and am good friends (or family) with a lot of people I know or suspect are very attuned to more populist right politics, just as I have a lot of people close to me in the opposite camp. It can be hard to navigate some of the politics at times, but I do try to accept differences in opinion.
They both were Liberal Conservatives, my mum a John Major fan and well travelled, indeed have many international friends, and even 3 dual national grandchildren, but have disappeared politically down a rabbit hole. At least I managed to keep them away from anti-vaxxism, as they were in their eighties when covid it and both medically vulnerable. If they had caught it in 2020/21 I would likely be an orphan
They should be all over the airwaves with stuff like this, rather than being on the defensive. Leaving aside views on their asylum policy, they can absolutely batter the Tories on this issue, and yes they do play the "blame the last lot" game, but nowhere near as strongly as they could on this topic.
Do you give anyone bar SinAlc a realistic chance in this one?
But generally I cover those two for the win and sit back.
The fact is, people hate the hotels and want their occupants sent home. Labour aren't doing that (yet) so they don't have a hand they can play.
And this is the fundamental issue. Most of us know at least one refugee. But the perception of those in the small boats is different from these people, whether rightly or wrongly.
A very interesting thread of someone thinking through all the questions, over on Buildhub - some unexpected things are mentioned, such as putting batteries in an unheated garage having an impact on capacity, and Tesla switching to a lower fire-risk chemistry for Powerwall 3 A decent place to start for anyone interested.
I read all the discussions here on solar. Sometimes they are far beyond my understanding but it's all very useful.
I think I have noticed a big change in recommendations over 3 years, and it's because of battery technology improving perhaps.
Context. Converting a barn. 19m x 19m. plus a garage 14 x9.
We think that panels on the SW face of the garage roof is perhaps sufficient. 70m2 of roof, say 60m2 of panels?
No shading.
A gable faces SE but vertical panels seem to be out of fashion again.
On the garage will mean it is all easy to access for installation, inspection and cleaning.
Heating will be air source: 2 units attached to the house.
We have 3 phase supply if that is relevant.
All the switchgear will be in the garage, then it's 15m to the house.
The garage can remain unheated.
Have had an initial consultation from a supplier.....
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/45027-very-basic-questions-about-solar-starting-now-if-you-dont-mind/
Now he just need to see the light on Brexit.
It's also a significantly cheaper chemistry, with greater longevity.
I'm interested that they are persisting with a two day conference.
https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1961430876895506880
They are going like 'ot cakes, apparently
Support: 48%
Oppose: 27%'
60% of Labour and 56% of LDs in favour.
48% of Reform voters opposed and 30% in favour, 42% of Tory voters opposed and 36% in favour
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1961451968502673874