Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia.
I’m not defending every decision taken by a Western country. They made many mistakes, and were too timid. But I reject this simplistic narrative that they don’t want Ukraine to win.
There has clearly been a lot of frog-boiling going on. In the early days of the war what Ukraine was allowed to do was ramped up *very slowly*. The idea they could have dropped a Neptune on a Voronezh oil refinery three years ago was obviously not to be contemplated.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia.
I’m not defending every decision taken by a Western country. They made many mistakes, and were too timid. But I reject this simplistic narrative that they don’t want Ukraine to win.
There has clearly been a lot of frog-boiling going on. In the early days of the war what Ukraine was allowed to do was ramped up *very slowly*. The idea they could have dropped a Neptune on a Voronezh oil refinery three years ago was obviously not to be contemplated.
Western countries have been wary of getting involved, for all sorts of reasons that we have discussed, but that’s not the same thing as this idea they don’t want Ukraine to win.
If a genie appeared and offered Starmer a big red button that, when pushed, would see Russia out of all of Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Putin on trial for war crimes, he’d push it. As would Macron.
(Trump would ask the genie to make everything he touches turn to gold.)
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Also a lot of wishful thinking that Russia will choose to end the war without being forced to by losing it.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Governments have to deal with people who don’t want to pay any tax to fund anything they don’t see as benefiting themselves personally. E.g. defence, benefits (if they are not receiving any), transport (if they don’t use public transport), and even the NHS if they are in good health.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Tax and NIC kicks in at £242 per week, at £12.21 per hour that works out at less than 20 hours per week.
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Also a lot of wishful thinking that Russia will choose to end the war without being forced to by losing it.
Lots of wishful thinking, after lots of pessimism. Lots of missteps. Lots of compromises. Lots of disagreements on strategy. Lots of concerns. Lots of staring at budgets.
Which is not the same as having a deliberate strategy of stalemate. Stalemate has just been the consequence of messy competing factors.
If you rent and work full time as a teaching assistant it is well nigh impossible NOT to be on UC. You can't ask for more hours either, as you can't work when the school isn't open.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Tax and NIC kicks in at £242 per week, at £12.21 per hour that works out at less than 20 hours per week.
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
The number of student loan repayees who are also lone parents claiming UC is minuscule.
However it is not just UC claimants. I was told by an employer who did security/stewarding type work that he couldn't get people to take on extra hours because they had to pay tax. At the same rate the rest of us pay it.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Sigh. I have never said the US and core Europe “did not want to support Ukraine”. I have said it has been unwilling to provide sufficient levels of support (materiel, diplomatic and rules of engagement) to allow Ukraine to achieve its war aims. The slow burn of Soviet arms, normalisation of hydrocarbon prices, and frozen battle lines has been a rather attractive outcome. It’s quite tedious conversing with you, because you just argue into a void of what you want people to have said, rather than what they have said.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
So the marginal rate is a bit less than just adding it up. 68% rather than 83%, for example.
I think you could probably bring a few more people into work, or work more hours, by capping at 60% or 50%, but it would have the effect of increasing the UC award for millions of people (and significantly increasing the caseload), and being incredibly costly at the same time. That's why DWP/HMRC aren't likely to touch it.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Tax and NIC kicks in at £242 per week, at £12.21 per hour that works out at less than 20 hours per week.
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
The number of student loan repayees who are also lone parents claiming UC is minuscule.
However it is not just UC claimants. I was told by an employer who did security/stewarding type work that he couldn't get people to take on extra hours because they had to pay tax. At the same rate the rest of us pay it.
Given the UC threshold is now less than full-time minimum wage, I very much doubt the number of people on both UC and repaying student loans is miniscule.
From multiple sources on Google it seems that one in nine people, or about 630,000 people, on Universal Credit are graduates.
That means that if they work full-time minimum wage their real marginal tax rate will be 20 + 8 + 9 with the 55% on top of that.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
So the marginal rate is a bit less than just adding it up. 68% rather than 83%, for example.
I think you could probably bring a few more people into work, or work more hours, by capping at 60% or 50%, but it would have the effect of increasing the UC award for millions of people (and significantly increasing the caseload), and being incredibly costly at the same time. That's why DWP/HMRC aren't likely to touch it.
The increase in the minimum wage while tax thresholds remain frozen is clearly having huge unintended consequences.
Which is why I think the Chancellor should have bitten the bullet and increased both the basic rate of income tax and the tax-free allowance
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Sigh. I have never said the US and core Europe “did not want to support Ukraine”. I have said it has been unwilling to provide sufficient levels of support (materiel, diplomatic and rules of engagement) to allow Ukraine to achieve its war aims. The slow burn of Soviet arms, normalisation of hydrocarbon prices, and frozen battle lines has been a rather attractive outcome. It’s quite tedious conversing with you, because you just argue into a void of what you want people to have said, rather than what they have said.
You said, “It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”.” You are now moving the goalposts.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
You should seek to support yourself, I totally agree with you.
And HMRC should not say to people, if you work any more, you're working for me now, you won't take anything home.
If HMRC does that, don't be surprised when people say "working any more won't support my family any better, so why bother".
That's HMRC's fault, not their fault. I used to blame people for doing that, but to be frank I can't blame them when HMRC jacks the tax up that high.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Tax and NIC kicks in at £242 per week, at £12.21 per hour that works out at less than 20 hours per week.
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
The number of student loan repayees who are also lone parents claiming UC is minuscule.
However it is not just UC claimants. I was told by an employer who did security/stewarding type work that he couldn't get people to take on extra hours because they had to pay tax. At the same rate the rest of us pay it.
Given the UC threshold is now less than full-time minimum wage, I very much doubt the number of people on both UC and repaying student loans is miniscule.
From multiple sources on Google it seems that one in nine people, or about 630,000 people, on Universal Credit are graduates.
That means that if they work full-time minimum wage their real marginal tax rate will be 20 + 8 + 9 with the 55% on top of that.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
You are theoretically better off earning more with UC, except for the fact that it is 55p on top of 20p and 8p and 9p (potentially, now included even at minimum wage work). Not 55p alone.
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
Most UC recipients don't pay tax or NI. UC is a non-taxable benefit. Not sure what your third deduction is.
Tax and NIC kicks in at £242 per week, at £12.21 per hour that works out at less than 20 hours per week.
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
The number of student loan repayees who are also lone parents claiming UC is minuscule.
However it is not just UC claimants. I was told by an employer who did security/stewarding type work that he couldn't get people to take on extra hours because they had to pay tax. At the same rate the rest of us pay it.
Given the UC threshold is now less than full-time minimum wage, I very much doubt the number of people on both UC and repaying student loans is miniscule.
From multiple sources on Google it seems that one in nine people, or about 630,000 people, on Universal Credit are graduates.
That means that if they work full-time minimum wage their real marginal tax rate will be 20 + 8 + 9 with the 55% on top of that.
Madness.
What's the "UC threshold"?
Sorry, typing too quick. I meant Student Loan threshold.
£25k, which is less than 40 hours a week minimum wage.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Sigh. I have never said the US and core Europe “did not want to support Ukraine”. I have said it has been unwilling to provide sufficient levels of support (materiel, diplomatic and rules of engagement) to allow Ukraine to achieve its war aims. The slow burn of Soviet arms, normalisation of hydrocarbon prices, and frozen battle lines has been a rather attractive outcome. It’s quite tedious conversing with you, because you just argue into a void of what you want people to have said, rather than what they have said.
You said, “It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”.” You are now moving the goalposts.
“Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”.
You are boring me to sleep, which I suppose is a good thing late on a Sunday night.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
You should seek to support yourself, I totally agree with you.
And HMRC should not say to people, if you work any more, you're working for me now, you won't take anything home.
If HMRC does that, don't be surprised when people say "working any more won't support my family any better, so why bother".
That's HMRC's fault, not their fault. I used to blame people for doing that, but to be frank I can't blame them when HMRC jacks the tax up that high.
It's not HMRC. They collect the tax. The Government decides what is due.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
You should seek to support yourself, I totally agree with you.
And HMRC should not say to people, if you work any more, you're working for me now, you won't take anything home.
If HMRC does that, don't be surprised when people say "working any more won't support my family any better, so why bother".
That's HMRC's fault, not their fault. I used to blame people for doing that, but to be frank I can't blame them when HMRC jacks the tax up that high.
It's not HMRC. They collect the tax. The Government decides what is due.
Whatever you want to call it, the Chancellor makes the decisions, the point is that people are facing a real world situation with absurdly high tax rates that mean if they work extra days, paying extra bus fares etc by doing so, they might end up with no extra income. So why would they bother?
And the situation is only getting worse with thresholds frozen. Now even graduates working for minimum wage can end up facing loan repayments and UC taper at the same time as well as income tax and NICs. All combined.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
I see it as a failure of imagination. The government could decide to cut UC rates at any budget. Your finances are much more secure if you're earning the money rather than reliant on UC.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia.
I’m not defending every decision taken by a Western country. They made many mistakes, and were too timid. But I reject this simplistic narrative that they don’t want Ukraine to win.
One thing that has changed for Europe, and has not really been talked about, is that two years ago its ability to supply ammunition without help from the US was minimal. It now has serious and growing capacity (again the UK is a laggard).
Taken with what is now clearly Trump's willingness to sabotage Europe's security in exchange for trade with Russia, you simply can't compare what European leaders were prepared to do even a year ago with what they're now contemplating for their own self-preservation.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
I see it as a failure of imagination. The government could decide to cut UC rates at any budget. Your finances are much more secure if you're earning the money rather than reliant on UC.
They could, though given the state of UK politics and our media coverage, they likely won't.
What's ironic though is if you do manage to earn enough to no longer receive UC, then your real tax rate absolutely collapses through the floor, so you suddenly have much more potential to earn and keep more.
Its a wicked poverty trap to give people just enough to claim they're over an artificial poverty line but then ensure they can't get or keep any more. We should fix it, as Milton Friedman advised decades ago, with flatter real tax rates.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia...
If Biden had deceived to supply several squadrons of F-16s early in the conflict, it could have made a big difference.
As it was, its was almost two years into the war before the decision was finally made to supply a few via Europe, and it was 2025 before any significant numbers were delivered.
I understand the reason for Biden's (and his advisers' caution), but I think they were wrong.
If you rent and work full time as a teaching assistant it is well nigh impossible NOT to be on UC. You can't ask for more hours either, as you can't work when the school isn't open.
100% of proof that teaching assistant civil servants are leaches on society.
I think that's how it works. They all get six-figure pensions too, right?
An election involving a hard-right candidate versus a communist member doesn't sound like a recipe for a happy politics does it?
"Hard-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast wins Chile presidential election
Chilean voters elected the most right-wing president in 35 years of democracy on Sunday, as official results showed Jose Antonio Kast with a thumping 58 percent of votes and his rival conceding defeat. With more than ten million votes counted -- almost 70 percent of the total -- Kast had an unassailable lead over Jeannette Jara, a Communist Party member heading a broad leftist coalition."
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia...
If Biden had deceived to supply several squadrons of F-16s early in the conflict, it could have made a big difference.
As it was, its was almost two years into the war before the decision was finally made to supply a few via Europe, and it was 2025 before any significant numbers were delivered.
I understand the reason for Biden's (and his advisers' caution), but I think they were wrong.
Biden had an overriding concern - that bombing Russian hydrocrbons facilities would increase oil prices ahead of the election. Politically toxic.
Yet we have seen Ukraine trashing them now almost with impunity. And Trump tells us gas prices are now cheap as chips...
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
That's right about no easy answer. The answer is controlled migration, assimilation encouraged, equality under the law regardless of creed or origin. And it's not easy. If only it were.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Of course you're entitled to vote in a democracy, but if you choose to vote en-bloc to strip others of their liberties then that is illiberal and not fitting with a secular democracy, even if it is democratic.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Of course you're entitled to vote in a democracy, but if you choose to vote en-bloc to strip others of their liberties then that is illiberal and not fitting with a secular democracy, even if it is democratic.
The French are absolutely right about that.
So? Democracies sometimes elect illiberal governments, democracy does not automatically = secular liberal government.
As for the French, at least 40% of them now vote for the illiberal nationalist Le Pen and her party
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
That's true but I think he's talking about voting on religious or sectarian lines, Muslim Brotherhood, Christian Nationalists, Catholics For Rome etc. We don't really want that.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Of course you're entitled to vote in a democracy, but if you choose to vote en-bloc to strip others of their liberties then that is illiberal and not fitting with a secular democracy, even if it is democratic.
The French are absolutely right about that.
So? Democracies sometimes elect illiberal governments, democracy does not automatically = secular liberal government.
As for the French, at least 40% of them now vote for the illiberal nationalist Le Pen and her party
Indeed, but people who value liberal democracy are entitled to be concerned by those who do not.
Whether those who do not are Christian or Muslim or fascist or any other extreme, it is reasonable to be concerned by illiberalism. The solution is preferably not to become illiberal yourself.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
That's true but I think he's talking about voting on religious or sectarian lines, Muslim Brotherhood, Christian Nationalists, Catholics For Rome etc. We don't really want that.
If people want to vote along religious or sectarian lines in a democracy they are entitled to
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Of course you're entitled to vote in a democracy, but if you choose to vote en-bloc to strip others of their liberties then that is illiberal and not fitting with a secular democracy, even if it is democratic.
The French are absolutely right about that.
So? Democracies sometimes elect illiberal governments, democracy does not automatically = secular liberal government.
As for the French, at least 40% of them now vote for the illiberal nationalist Le Pen and her party
Indeed, but people who value liberal democracy are entitled to be concerned by those who do not.
Whether those who do not are Christian or Muslim or fascist or any other extreme, it is reasonable to be concerned by illiberalism. The solution is preferably not to become illiberal yourself.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
Of course you're entitled to vote in a democracy, but if you choose to vote en-bloc to strip others of their liberties then that is illiberal and not fitting with a secular democracy, even if it is democratic.
The French are absolutely right about that.
So? Democracies sometimes elect illiberal governments, democracy does not automatically = secular liberal government.
As for the French, at least 40% of them now vote for the illiberal nationalist Le Pen and her party
Indeed, but people who value liberal democracy are entitled to be concerned by those who do not.
Whether those who do not are Christian or Muslim or fascist or any other extreme, it is reasonable to be concerned by illiberalism. The solution is preferably not to become illiberal yourself.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No it isn't, the religious are as entitled to vote as the non religious. If they want to vote based on their faith, to oppose abortion and same sex marriage, increase aid to the poor, restrict divorce, for extra tax support for marriage and extra child benefit so be it. That is democracy, it is not theocracy as long as everyone secular or religious can still vote in free elections
That's true but I think he's talking about voting on religious or sectarian lines, Muslim Brotherhood, Christian Nationalists, Catholics For Rome etc. We don't really want that.
If people want to vote along religious or sectarian lines in a democracy they are entitled to
Nobody said they should not be entitled to do so.
However if people are intending to do so, that would be a legitimate reason for concern about mass migration of people wanting to vote on sectarian lines.
If people aren't intending to do so, that's not a concern.
A couple of weeks ago, saw a Julia Bradbury walking episode where she walked across. Also actually been on the Strathspey Railway a few years back, 2019, though it only goes as far east as Broomhill.
My wife tells me she walked across it as a child. Walked across the span as the flat part was rather boring.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Also a lot of wishful thinking that Russia will choose to end the war without being forced to by losing it.
Russia already failed in its war objectives three years ago. The reality is that Putin has not yet been forced to accept the consequences of that failure. The same nuclear rhetoric offered by Medvedev officially and the Russian media more generally has made the West ultra cautious about confronting Russia with its failure. That failure is nevertheless real and as thousands of men are killed and wounded, as trillions of Roubles of equipment are destroyed, not to be replaced, as the economic and financial costs grow to the point of economic meltdown, the consequences of this disaster grow more urgent every day. Trump's alienation of Western allies incidentally will cost the United States massively more than any deal they can make with the corrupt and broken down regime in the Kremlin. I guess at 73 Putin looks youthful to the 79 year old senile crook sitting on the wreckage of the East wing. Things are stirring in Moscow that will ultimately bring the war to a conclusion- which will spend Trump's axis of authoritarianism. The US preferred a G5 with China, India, Russia and Japan, apparently failing to notice that Russia has an economy now, on some measures, only a fifth the size of Germany's and not much more versus the UK or France. Trump is not merely a knave, he is a fool.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Also a lot of wishful thinking that Russia will choose to end the war without being forced to by losing it.
Russia already failed in its war objectives three years ago. The reality is that Putin has not yet been forced to accept the consequences of that failure. The same nuclear rhetoric offered by Medvedev officially and the Russian media more generally has made the West ultra cautious about confronting Russia with its failure. That failure is nevertheless real and as thousands of men are killed and wounded, as trillions of Roubles of equipment are destroyed, not to be replaced, as the economic and financial costs grow to the point of economic meltdown, the consequences of this disaster grow more urgent every day. Trump's alienation of Western allies incidentally will cost the United States massively more than any deal they can make with the corrupt and broken down regime in the Kremlin. I guess at 73 Putin looks youthful to the 79 year old senile crook sitting on the wreckage of the East wing. Things are stirring in Moscow that will ultimately bring the war to a conclusion- which will spend Trump's axis of authoritarianism. The US preferred a G5 with China, India, Russia and Japan, apparently failing to notice that Russia has an economy now, on some measures, only a fifth the size of Germany's and not much more versus the UK or France. Trump is not merely a knave, he is a fool.
I'm pretty sure you wrote similar comments three years ago, but Russia is still grinding on.
I absolutely believe that an outright Russian defeat is possible, but it will take a deal more effort than Europe has been willing to make so far. Otherwise a Ukrainian defeat is still also a potential outcome.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Also a lot of wishful thinking that Russia will choose to end the war without being forced to by losing it.
Russia already failed in its war objectives three years ago. The reality is that Putin has not yet been forced to accept the consequences of that failure. The same nuclear rhetoric offered by Medvedev officially and the Russian media more generally has made the West ultra cautious about confronting Russia with its failure. That failure is nevertheless real and as thousands of men are killed and wounded, as trillions of Roubles of equipment are destroyed, not to be replaced, as the economic and financial costs grow to the point of economic meltdown, the consequences of this disaster grow more urgent every day. Trump's alienation of Western allies incidentally will cost the United States massively more than any deal they can make with the corrupt and broken down regime in the Kremlin. I guess at 73 Putin looks youthful to the 79 year old senile crook sitting on the wreckage of the East wing. Things are stirring in Moscow that will ultimately bring the war to a conclusion- which will spend Trump's axis of authoritarianism. The US preferred a G5 with China, India, Russia and Japan, apparently failing to notice that Russia has an economy now, on some measures, only a fifth the size of Germany's and not much more versus the UK or France. Trump is not merely a knave, he is a fool.
I'm pretty sure you wrote similar comments three years ago, but Russia is still grinding on.
I absolutely believe that an outright Russian defeat is possible, but it will take a deal more effort than Europe has been willing to make so far. Otherwise a Ukrainian defeat is still also a potential outcome.
Here's a thought.
Various analysts have indicated that one of the main issues for Putin will be the reintroduction of the military into a post-SMO society and the economic hit when the Defence industries are wound down. Given his age, his chosen solution may be to not stop and continue to expand Novorossiya as far as he can - as his legacy. Reportedly he is an accomplished historian with a wish to be amongst the Russian Greats.
There will be a Rubicon for the West but where it will be is uncertain.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
I thought this contrast was well demonstrated in the recent terrorist attack: both the attackers and the civilian hero who disarmed one of them were all Muslim.
Of course two of them aren't welcome in Western society (outside prison), while the other clearly is (and will likely be much celebrated by his community). Someone's religion isn't their defining factor.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia...
If Biden had deceived to supply several squadrons of F-16s early in the conflict, it could have made a big difference.
As it was, its was almost two years into the war before the decision was finally made to supply a few via Europe, and it was 2025 before any significant numbers were delivered.
I understand the reason for Biden's (and his advisers' caution), but I think they were wrong.
Biden had an overriding concern - that bombing Russian hydrocrbons facilities would increase oil prices ahead of the election. Politically toxic.
Yet we have seen Ukraine trashing them now almost with impunity. And Trump tells us gas prices are now cheap as chips...
Yes, both Biden and Trump have been far too timid when it comes to Ukraine. With so many of the European weapons being American and with restrictions placed on their use, Ukraine has done what any country fighting a war would so and produced weapons of their own.
They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, with regular attacks on Russian O&G facilities and war machine industries. The attack on the weapons train deep in Siberia the other day appears to have caused a billion dollars in damage, and closed the railway from the Far East in one of they worst possible places to repair.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
You know, I've heard stupider ideas.
Find imams from more enlightened Muslim countries such as UAE and Oman, not from the worst parts of Iran and Pakistan.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
You know, I've heard stupider ideas.
Find imams from more enlightened Muslim countries such as UAE and Oman, not from the worst parts of Iran and Pakistan.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
I thought this contrast was well demonstrated in the recent terrorist attack: both the attackers and the civilian hero who disarmed one of them were all Muslim.
Of course two of them aren't welcome in Western society (outside prison), while the other clearly is (and will likely be much celebrated by his community). Someone's religion isn't their defining factor.
Quite. It should a relentless focus from the Police and the rest of us on what people do rather than who they are. The authorities are so afraid of the 'racist' or 'Islamaphobe' label they become paralysed and do nothing. Read through any thread on here and you'll see it written to shut down anyone who dares to risk it. The first big march in London after the October massacre was to attack Israel, before there'd been any retributions. anti-Semitism has been legitimised by western governments - not least when they recognised Palestine - run by Hamas. Again and again we see the results. It must be terrifying to be a Jew these days.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
I thought this contrast was well demonstrated in the recent terrorist attack: both the attackers and the civilian hero who disarmed one of them were all Muslim.
Of course two of them aren't welcome in Western society (outside prison), while the other clearly is (and will likely be much celebrated by his community). Someone's religion isn't their defining factor.
I suspect that religion defines the nature of the action not the decision to act itself.
The kind of person who shoots up a peaceful Jewish celebration has made two decisions: (I) to shoot up a mass event; and (II) to select a Jewish event. It seems to me that beliefs (whether religious, political or whatever) play a role in 2 but much less so in 1.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
As I keep pointing out
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance - include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations. - use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds - Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence. - Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals - Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
Sell it as War On Modern Slavers.
The problem with this approach is that we'd end up with a million or so illegals getting ILR. That's not a viable solution. People want them deported, not given any kind of amnesty.
Ha!
The hidden clue is that we don't do retroactive laws in this country.
So, under the Malmesbury UnDicatorship, it is announced that the measures above will come in on Midsummers Day. In the following year.
Only those breaking the law *after that* will be liable.
Could I point the Malmesbury UnDicatorship to the British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill 2022-23 which retrospectively gave British Citizenship to children born to EU nationals.
I point this out as someone who finds the current concept of nationality to be bizarre. When the UK gave up birthright citizenship, it essentially monetised UK Citizenship as it could be sold for £mn in inward investment, provided as part of trade deals, or simply offered to the highest bidders in terms of political donations. It means that the flag shaggers are somewhat out of touch with the modern world where everything in the UK is for sale - homes, land, industries, and now nationality.
This is Spinal Tap The Sure Thing Stand By Me The Princess Bride When Harry Met Sally Misery A Few Good Men
He'd also appeared in The Jerk, Throw Momma From the Train, Postcards from the Edge, Sleepless in Seattle. (And started as a kid in TV, appearing in an episode of Batman as a delivery boy...
This is Spinal Tap The Sure Thing Stand By Me The Princess Bride When Harry Met Sally Misery A Few Good Men
He'd also appeared in The Jerk, Throw Momma From the Train, Postcards from the Edge, Sleepless in Seattle. (And started as a kid in TV, appearing in an episode of Batman as a delivery boy...
That is some body of work.
The Sure Thing was an underrated gem. From when romcoms included more com than rom.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
You know, I've heard stupider ideas.
Find imams from more enlightened Muslim countries such as UAE and Oman, not from the worst parts of Iran and Pakistan.
There's also Malaysia.
None of these countries strike me as bastions of individual liberty and western values. "Better than Iran or Pakistan" is a low bar.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
The biggie is Muslims. A core belief - perhaps the core belief - of today's far right is that Muslims (that's 2 billion people) do not belong in developed western countries. Therefore stop letting them in and expel as many as possible of those already here. Anybody signed up to this is onboard with the far right. I don't know exactly how widespread it is as a view but I do know it's more widespread than it ought to be.
The problem is organised religion.
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote according to tenets of their beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
No argument from me on that. Religious freedom, yes. Religious imposition, no.
The problem is nobody has come up with a good solution to segregating the two.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
A radical possibility, that would chime with KCIIIs inclusive instincts, would be to establish a Mosque of England - an approved state Islam - and establish state control of the appointment of imams, etc. Make sure that they serve the right biscuits after mosque services, that sort of thing.
You know, I've heard stupider ideas.
Find imams from more enlightened Muslim countries such as UAE and Oman, not from the worst parts of Iran and Pakistan.
There's also Malaysia.
None of these countries strike me as bastions of individual liberty and western values. "Better than Iran or Pakistan" is a low bar.
“There will come a day when we will see far more radical extremists & terrorists coming out of Europe because of a lack of decision-making, trying to be politically correct or assuming that they know the Middle East & they know Islam & others far better than we do.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia...
If Biden had deceived to supply several squadrons of F-16s early in the conflict, it could have made a big difference.
It made no difference when they did get them (and Mir2k). Their principle value was for propaganda which is Z's specialist subject.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
As I keep pointing out
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance - include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations. - use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds - Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence. - Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals - Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
Sell it as War On Modern Slavers.
The problem with this approach is that we'd end up with a million or so illegals getting ILR. That's not a viable solution. People want them deported, not given any kind of amnesty.
Ha!
The hidden clue is that we don't do retroactive laws in this country.
So, under the Malmesbury UnDicatorship, it is announced that the measures above will come in on Midsummers Day. In the following year.
Only those breaking the law *after that* will be liable.
Politician's will take the wimpy option as ever and let the mugs pay for it.
I suspect the 9p is student loan. UC reduces by 55% of your post tax (and pension contribution) earnings over a threshold, which will be individual.
Indeed it does, UC is calculated on your net income, not gross.
Indeed, so the 55% is applied after 20 and 8 [and potentially 9] is also being taken, when it comes to working extra hours.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
I think it is a moral failing, you should seek to support yourself.
You should seek to support yourself, I totally agree with you.
And HMRC should not say to people, if you work any more, you're working for me now, you won't take anything home.
If HMRC does that, don't be surprised when people say "working any more won't support my family any better, so why bother".
That's HMRC's fault, not their fault. I used to blame people for doing that, but to be frank I can't blame them when HMRC jacks the tax up that high.
It's not HMRC. They collect the tax. The Government decides what is due.
Whatever you want to call it, the Chancellor makes the decisions, the point is that people are facing a real world situation with absurdly high tax rates that mean if they work extra days, paying extra bus fares etc by doing so, they might end up with no extra income. So why would they bother?
And the situation is only getting worse with thresholds frozen. Now even graduates working for minimum wage can end up facing loan repayments and UC taper at the same time as well as income tax and NICs. All combined.
Self respect and not wanting to be a sponger, lacking a lot in this country nowadays.
Comments
If you need to pay for an additional return bus ticket, let alone childcare or other incidentals, then no you're not necessarily better off earning more.
Especially if you have the option to work cash-in-hand and not declare the extra income, or do other stuff instead.
If a genie appeared and offered Starmer a big red button that, when pushed, would see Russia out of all of Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Putin on trial for war crimes, he’d push it. As would Macron.
(Trump would ask the genie to make everything he touches turn to gold.)
If you're working 20 hours a week across 3 days, then get offered a 4th day but you'd need to pay incidentals like bus fares or childcare then you would face 20% tax and 8% NIC and 55% taper on that 4th day. Is it a wonder many won't bother?
The third deduction in student loan repayments which frozen again at £25k now kick in at less than full-time minimum wage as of next April.
Which is not the same as having a deliberate strategy of stalemate. Stalemate has just been the consequence of messy competing factors.
You can't ask for more hours either, as you can't work when the school isn't open.
It is a draconianly high real tax rate and means may will think, quite rationally, why bother. That's no moral failing on their part, its acting rationally to an irrational setup.
However it is not just UC claimants. I was told by an employer who did security/stewarding type work that he couldn't get people to take on extra hours because they had to pay tax. At the same rate the rest of us pay it.
I think you could probably bring a few more people into work, or work more hours, by capping at 60% or 50%, but it would have the effect of increasing the UC award for millions of people (and significantly increasing the caseload), and being incredibly costly at the same time. That's why DWP/HMRC aren't likely to touch it.
From multiple sources on Google it seems that one in nine people, or about 630,000 people, on Universal Credit are graduates.
That means that if they work full-time minimum wage their real marginal tax rate will be 20 + 8 + 9 with the 55% on top of that.
Madness.
Which is why I think the Chancellor should have bitten the bullet and increased both the basic rate of income tax and the tax-free allowance
And HMRC should not say to people, if you work any more, you're working for me now, you won't take anything home.
If HMRC does that, don't be surprised when people say "working any more won't support my family any better, so why bother".
That's HMRC's fault, not their fault. I used to blame people for doing that, but to be frank I can't blame them when HMRC jacks the tax up that high.
£25k, which is less than 40 hours a week minimum wage.
You are boring me to sleep, which I suppose is a good thing late on a Sunday night.
And the situation is only getting worse with thresholds frozen. Now even graduates working for minimum wage can end up facing loan repayments and UC taper at the same time as well as income tax and NICs. All combined.
It now has serious and growing capacity (again the UK is a laggard).
Taken with what is now clearly Trump's willingness to sabotage Europe's security in exchange for trade with Russia, you simply can't compare what European leaders were prepared to do even a year ago with what they're now contemplating for their own self-preservation.
What's ironic though is if you do manage to earn enough to no longer receive UC, then your real tax rate absolutely collapses through the floor, so you suddenly have much more potential to earn and keep more.
Its a wicked poverty trap to give people just enough to claim they're over an artificial poverty line but then ensure they can't get or keep any more. We should fix it, as Milton Friedman advised decades ago, with flatter real tax rates.
As it was, its was almost two years into the war before the decision was finally made to supply a few via Europe, and it was 2025 before any significant numbers were delivered.
I understand the reason for Biden's (and his advisers' caution), but I think they were wrong.
I think that's how it works. They all get six-figure pensions too, right?
"Hard-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast wins Chile presidential election
Chilean voters elected the most right-wing president in 35 years of democracy on Sunday, as official results showed Jose Antonio Kast with a thumping 58 percent of votes and his rival conceding defeat. With more than ten million votes counted -- almost 70 percent of the total -- Kast had an unassailable lead over Jeannette Jara, a Communist Party member heading a broad leftist coalition."
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20251214-hard-right-candidate-jose-antonio-kast-wins-chile-presidential-election
Yet we have seen Ukraine trashing them now almost with impunity. And Trump tells us gas prices are now cheap as chips...
People who want to be religious and keep their religious beliefs to themselves are fine in a secular society. We can all do as we please, respect each other's differences and live happily side-by-side.
The problem is people who want to impose their religion upon others. People who want to vote to strip others of their liberty according to tenets of their own beliefs. People who will take up arms to fight for their beliefs.
Whether those people be Christian, or Muslim, or A N Other, they are repugnant for a free, democratic, and secular society.
Many if not most Muslims are perfectly enlightened.
Many are not.
The same goes with Christians and others, but the lack of enlightenment is a bigger issue in areas of the Middle East and Africa and similar.
If we allow in one, we allow in the other. There is no easy answer to that. So people are drawn to those shouting easy slogans instead.
The French are absolutely right about that.
As for the French, at least 40% of them now vote for the illiberal nationalist Le Pen and her party
Whether those who do not are Christian or Muslim or fascist or any other extreme, it is reasonable to be concerned by illiberalism. The solution is preferably not to become illiberal yourself.
However if people are intending to do so, that would be a legitimate reason for concern about mass migration of people wanting to vote on sectarian lines.
If people aren't intending to do so, that's not a concern.
It is reasonable to judge the risk accordingly.
https://x.com/osint613/status/2000407301019095123?s=61
Trump's alienation of Western allies incidentally will cost the United States massively more than any deal they can make with the corrupt and broken down regime in the Kremlin. I guess at 73 Putin looks youthful to the 79 year old senile crook sitting on the wreckage of the East wing.
Things are stirring in Moscow that will ultimately bring the war to a conclusion- which will spend Trump's axis of authoritarianism. The US preferred a G5 with China, India, Russia and Japan, apparently failing to notice that Russia has an economy now, on some measures, only a fifth the size of Germany's and not much more versus the UK or France.
Trump is not merely a knave, he is a fool.
I absolutely believe that an outright Russian defeat is possible, but it will take a deal more effort than Europe has been willing to make so far. Otherwise a Ukrainian defeat is still also a potential outcome.
Various analysts have indicated that one of the main issues for Putin will be the reintroduction of the military into a post-SMO society and the economic hit when the Defence industries are wound down. Given his age, his chosen solution may be to not stop and continue to expand Novorossiya as far as he can - as his legacy. Reportedly he is an accomplished historian with a wish to be amongst the Russian Greats.
There will be a Rubicon for the West but where it will be is uncertain.
Of course two of them aren't welcome in Western society (outside prison), while the other clearly is (and will likely be much celebrated by his community). Someone's religion isn't their defining factor.
They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, with regular attacks on Russian O&G facilities and war machine industries. The attack on the weapons train deep in Siberia the other day appears to have caused a billion dollars in damage, and closed the railway from the Far East in one of they worst possible places to repair.
The kind of person who shoots up a peaceful Jewish celebration has made two decisions: (I) to shoot up a mass event; and (II) to select a Jewish event. It seems to me that beliefs (whether religious, political or whatever) play a role in 2 but much less so in 1.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9809/
I point this out as someone who finds the current concept of nationality to be bizarre. When the UK gave up birthright citizenship, it essentially monetised UK Citizenship as it could be sold for £mn in inward investment, provided as part of trade deals, or simply offered to the highest bidders in terms of political donations. It means that the flag shaggers are somewhat out of touch with the modern world where everything in the UK is for sale - homes, land, industries, and now nationality.
This is Spinal Tap
The Sure Thing
Stand By Me
The Princess Bride
When Harry Met Sally
Misery
A Few Good Men
He'd also appeared in The Jerk, Throw Momma From the Train, Postcards from the Edge, Sleepless in Seattle. (And started as a kid in TV, appearing in an episode of Batman as a delivery boy...
That is some body of work.
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2000434393534615857
“There will come a day when we will see far more radical extremists & terrorists coming out of Europe because of a lack of decision-making, trying to be politically correct or assuming that they know the Middle East & they know Islam & others far better than we do.
I am sorry but that’s pure ignorance."
NEW THREAD