Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
A hastily arranged news conference from Sir Keir Starmer is imminent.
International Law...not involved....defensive actions....
Challenging Trump to a duel?
I imagine Trump in a duel would be the one after agreeing on walking 10 paces away from one another before turning and shooting, would get to about 1 and shoot.
Starmer has announced that he's found four (4) extra Typhoon jets at the back of a RAF hanger to send to Qatar.
Big numbers.
Probably find that they can't go for another 3 weeks as they were waiting to be repainted and Bazza the only person certified to paint them is in Portugal on a golfing holiday.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
No need to double.
Under my scheme, the deliveroo riders would rock up at the police station.
Of course, there would be no actual illegal working to report, by the time the law came in.
Any illegal immigrant is going to turn down the chance of cycling to the local police station - they aren’t that stupid
Raskin: I heard one of our colleagues across the aisle just say, “Well, yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does give Congress the exclusive, plenary, comprehensive power to declare war and not the president. And we could be debating it, but the president has already taken us to war, so it’s too late. It would undermine the cause for us to debate it.” .. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2029312275476299920
That clause is obsolete.
Virtually every single President since WWII has taken America into conflicts without Congressional approval.
Not one President since WWII has achieved Congressional approval for going into a conflict.
Complete and utter balls.
The only reason the Senate isn't enforcing its powers under this clause is that the Republicans refuse to do so - and indeed just voted against doing so. It doesn't make the power "obsolete", while the US remains a constitutional democracy,
Raskin: I heard one of our colleagues across the aisle just say, “Well, yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does give Congress the exclusive, plenary, comprehensive power to declare war and not the president. And we could be debating it, but the president has already taken us to war, so it’s too late. It would undermine the cause for us to debate it.” .. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2029312275476299920
That clause is obsolete.
Virtually every single President since WWII has taken America into conflicts without Congressional approval.
Not one President since WWII has achieved Congressional approval for going into a conflict.
Complete and utter balls.
The only reason the Senate isn't enforcing its powers under this clause is that the Republicans refuse to do so - and indeed just voted against doing so. It doesn't make the power "obsolete", while the US remains a constitutional democracy,
There have been 14 US Presidents since WWII.
Of those the number of US Presidents who have taken America into conflicts without Congressional approval is . . . 14
The number who have not is . . . 0
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 14 times out of 14 . . . sorry, that clause is obsolete.
Congress did pass -for example- the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing force. Likewise, Afghanstan and Gulf Wars I and II had Congressional approval.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, expressed limiting the actions of the President in going to war, which is why successive Presidents have tried to demonstrate legislative figleaves at the very least, if not explicit legislative support, to cover their actions.
It's never been contested in court, since successive Congresses (as with yesterday's Senate vote) have avoided confrontation.
The current adventure, unlike Iraq, is highly unpopular at the outset. If this war isn't quickly concluded, then it could well be contested after the midterms.
As the article itself points out, it is not enough to be popular in the party, the Conservatives must also be popular in the country. Until she raises the party's polling to a credible level, she has not succeeded.
As the article itself points out, it is not enough to be popular in the party, the Conservatives must also be popular in the country. Until she raises the party's polling to a credible level, she has not succeeded.
I'm wondering what the Venn diagram for enthusiasm for piling red tape on businesses folk don't like, and those advocating removing all regulations for everything else.
I’m an enthusiast for having
- simple regulations - actually enforcing them
It’s already fairly simple to find out someone’s employment status. I help do the paperwork for my relatives business.
The “it’s a bit tricky” brigade are really saying “if I can’t employ people illegally, my costs will go up”
Well absolutely. But just await the howls if deliveroo was shut down and folk had to pay for minimum wage employees to deliver. Or, even worse, have to get off their arse themselves.
As the article itself points out, it is not enough to be popular in the party, the Conservatives must also be popular in the country. Until she raises the party's polling to a credible level, she has not succeeded.
Indeed but she has 3 years
Amazing to me that people expected the party who’d just been kicked out after fourteen years to be the recipient of protest votes against the new govt. it is a tough job that Badenoch has on her hands, and being popular within her own party is a positive sign.
I'm wondering what the Venn diagram for enthusiasm for piling red tape on businesses folk don't like, and those advocating removing all regulations for everything else.
Government should be putting its resources into dismantling illegal and exploitative industries, and should be leaving the average new company and small business the f**k alone.
Yes but. You can't spot the obvious flaw in that statement?
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
For the sake of argument, and putting you down as a Tory, you would be in the 24%. My explanation refers to the other 65% (and 81% of Reform supporters).
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
Yes, the right of centre is heavily critical of him, and those numbers outweigh more half hearted support from the left. And if course the full on pacifists will also think he's getting it wrong.
I suspect if Reform were in government, and fully backing Trump, that might poll even worse, since the war itself is not popular.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
As the article itself points out, it is not enough to be popular in the party, the Conservatives must also be popular in the country. Until she raises the party's polling to a credible level, she has not succeeded.
Indeed but she has 3 years
...being popular within her own party is a positive sign.
Is it? It's a good sign if the number of people in the party are increasing rapidly, and a bad sign if the number of people in the party are decreasing rapidly
Market share, volume of sales, profit are different concepts. Similarly party popularity, voter popularity, and voting intention are different. I know you know this (you were the one who propounded the "gross popularity as predictor" theory), but the casual reader may not.
I'm wondering what the Venn diagram for enthusiasm for piling red tape on businesses folk don't like, and those advocating removing all regulations for everything else.
I’m an enthusiast for having
- simple regulations - actually enforcing them
It’s already fairly simple to find out someone’s employment status. I help do the paperwork for my relatives business.
The “it’s a bit tricky” brigade are really saying “if I can’t employ people illegally, my costs will go up”
Well absolutely. But just await the howls if deliveroo was shut down and folk had to pay for minimum wage employees to deliver. Or, even worse, have to get off their arse themselves.
Surely that’s what a Labour government should have been doing in their first week of office, 18 months ago?
As the article itself points out, it is not enough to be popular in the party, the Conservatives must also be popular in the country. Until she raises the party's polling to a credible level, she has not succeeded.
Indeed but she has 3 years
...being popular within her own party is a positive sign.
Is it? It's a good sign if the number of people in the party are increasing rapidly, and a bad sign if the number of people in the party are decreasing rapidly
Market share, volume of sales, profit are different concepts. Similarly party popularity, voter popularity, and voting intention are different. I know you know this (you were the one who propounded the "gross popularity as predictor" theory), but the casual reader may not.
Jeremy Corbyn was exceptionally popular with the Party membership. And brought in tens of thousands of new members.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
No need to double.
Under my scheme, the deliveroo riders would rock up at the police station.
Of course, there would be no actual illegal working to report, by the time the law came in.
Any illegal immigrant is going to turn down the chance of cycling to the local police station - they aren’t that stupid
They would, if they are looking at getting (legally) indefinite leave to remain and £50k for reporting their scumbag bosses.
I'm wondering what the Venn diagram for enthusiasm for piling red tape on businesses folk don't like, and those advocating removing all regulations for everything else.
I’m an enthusiast for having
- simple regulations - actually enforcing them
It’s already fairly simple to find out someone’s employment status. I help do the paperwork for my relatives business.
The “it’s a bit tricky” brigade are really saying “if I can’t employ people illegally, my costs will go up”
Well absolutely. But just await the howls if deliveroo was shut down and folk had to pay for minimum wage employees to deliver. Or, even worse, have to get off their arse themselves.
Surely that’s what a Labour government should have been doing in their first week of office, 18 months ago?
ISTR they tried. Wasn't the judgement that they were all self employed what stymied the planned reforms?
Keir Starmer doesn’t deny @ShippersUnbound story that he pushed to allow the US to carry out defensive strikes from British bases but was blocked by his Cabinet, including Ed Miliband
He says that on Friday there was no formal request from the US, but that’s not the same thing. He is not denying the fact of the discussion at the NSC
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes, although it does depend by party affiliation:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the public's preferred position. See:
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
The law punishes employers who hire people without the right to work, but there's a massive great loophole in there in that it doesn't include 'independent contractors', which Uber, minicab firms, Deliveroo and the like abuse.
Yep and all of them do everything they possibly can to ensure they workers are independent contractors.
But hey I’ve spent a couple of hours chatting to the experts on this as to where the snags within UK law are, but that’s not stopped others on here finding quick perfect solutions (which are neither, quick, perfect or practical).
That is actually something I admie about the Starmer Government.
They do seem to take the time to try and get things right. *
It is SO refeshing after Boris "Whu..? Whut..? WTF?" Johnson.
(Ducks behind sofa with calendar on head, holding rolling pin, in anticipation of reactions.)
* This is not a claim that they actually get things right.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
These bikes that zoom about on pavements and cycle lanes, seemingly without the need to pedal. They seem to me to be the easy enforcement option, should one be needed.
The Police don't regularly enforce the law in respect illegal bikes (electric or motorcycles) because the only realistic way to stop these people if they try to get away is to knock them off, which opens up PC Plod to investigation, dismissal and possible charges if the scrote on the bike gets hurt.
I understand that, from time to time, the vehicles in question aren't moving. Perhaps that's when they could be checked for their legality
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
The law punishes employers who hire people without the right to work, but there's a massive great loophole in there in that it doesn't include 'independent contractors', which Uber, minicab firms, Deliveroo and the like abuse.
It should absolutely be on the platforms to vet their contractors.
If I pay Uber and my driver turns out to be a convicted rapist, that needs to be Uber’s problem.
If their vetted driver lets the convicted rapist drive the car, that’s still Uber’s problem, because that’s the company taking the money.
The problem you have is that UK (self) employment law boils down to the fact if I can get someone else to do my job for me that allows me to be self employed.
And no one in 60 years has come up with a fix that has a better definition for self employment.
Now it’s utterly insane but right of substitution is the easiest way of showing you are outside IR35
Which is why the likes of Deliveroo should be told there is no right of substitution applicable to their order taking, that if they are giving orders to drivers they need to check the ID of those doing the deliveries and that they can't be substituted once an order is assigned. Failure to do so results in a £x0,000 fine per order.
If that means they need to pay NICs or IR35 etc as a result, so be it.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
New Deliveroo policy: if it's donuts, make sure the delivery driver has the right to work.
"No other head of state besides me has visited any Iranian embassy. To fail to appreciate this, to disregard it, to show themselves as lowly ingrates like this brings honor to no one.
These dishonorable people who carried out this terrorist act against us will be sorry for this”
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
New Deliveroo policy: if it's donuts, make sure the delivery driver has the right to work.
Our local BP service station has an M&S attached. Most times we visit, the police are on site.
Not to tackle crime, but to get their supplies of coffee and donuts.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
The question is the issue
It's like asking a West Brom supporter do they support Blues or Villa more or neither
The answer is 70% support blues or via a more 30% neither.
The question is
Do you agree with Keir Starmer refusing to all US to use UK bases to take offensive action against Iran
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
New Deliveroo policy: if it's donuts, make sure the delivery driver has the right to work.
Our local BP service station has an M&S attached. Most times we visit, the police are on site.
Not to tackle crime, but to get their supplies of coffee and donuts.
Snap! Exactly same here on the A12 Eastern Avenue!
Just rewatched Wag the Dog, a darkly satirical movie from 1997 about the White House creating a carefully scripted war right before an important election to distract voters from a sex scandal involving an underaged girl. Really. https://x.com/MattKibbe/status/2029253763798589801
I’m in the USA this week. If Dubai is the Canary Wharf of the desert, then Orlando truly is the Milton Keynes of the swamps.
Two things are really noticeable about the local reaction to the Iran SMO.
Firstly, whilst I’d say UK opinion is relatively nuanced with quite a number of people on the fence (and this is reflected in media coverage), it is way way more negative here. I’m struggling to find anyone who thinks the war is a good idea, whatever side of politics they’re on. Outside Fox, the media coverage is almost universally negative too. The old isolationist reflex in the US remains strong.
Secondly, again perhaps unsurprisingly, they’re not talking about it much. It’s very much in the background. Domestic politics as always trumps foreign affairs here.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
The question is the issue
It's like asking a West Brom supporter do they support Blues or Villa more or neither
The answer is 70% support blues or via a more 30% neither.
The question is
Do you agree with Keir Starmer refusing to all US to use UK bases to take offensive action against Iran
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
New Deliveroo policy: if it's donuts, make sure the delivery driver has the right to work.
Our local BP service station has an M&S attached. Most times we visit, the police are on site.
Not to tackle crime, but to get their supplies of coffee and donuts.
Snap! Exactly same here on the A12 Eastern Avenue!
You do know that many Police Forces will strategically park an old police car in such places to deter speeding, deter drive off non payers and crime locally
They may also be awaiting a reported stolen or speeding vehicle
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
The question is the issue
It's like asking a West Brom supporter do they support Blues or Villa more or neither
The answer is 70% support blues or via a more 30% neither.
The question is
Do you agree with Keir Starmer refusing to all US to use UK bases to take offensive action against Iran
Yes or no or don't know
Thats a question, its not the only question
There are many questions better than that question and many more questions more than those many questions that might have been more helpful in giving us a sensible answer
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The questions allows for those who think he's gone too far and those who think he's not gone far enough as equally unhappy or happy.
The telegraph is reporting that Spain are going to send a warship to Cyprus before ours gets there
Spain has a 2-3 day head start being closer so that’s hardly fair
I disagree. my view is Spain is not sending a warship to defend Cyprus. Nor France sending a Frigate and Aircraft Carrier to defend Cyprus Airbase. Nor UK sending Type 45 air defence destroyer to protect Cyprus Airbase. That is not the reality happening here.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK received a second large donation from businessman Christopher Harborne, pushing the party’s fundraising far ahead of that for Labour and the Conservatives last year.
Harborne gave Reform £3mn in November, adding to the £9mn he donated in August, a sum that was the biggest single donation to a UK political party by a living donor.
Harborne, an aviation entrepreneur and crypto investor, was born in Britain but has lived in Thailand for the past two decades. He gave large sums to Farage’s previous political vehicle, the Brexit party, in 2019 and 2020.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
Deliveroo and co don't set the law, the Government with its landslide majority in Parliament does.
If the Civil Service thinks its a nightmare, then change the goddamn law. Get a bill through our sovereign Parliament.
Changing the law is the goddamn problem - UK employment law is an utter mess, and the issue you need to fix is making someone in the middle of the chain but 3 levels above the illegal worker responsible for the worker being legal.
Now you could make the end user of Deliveroo responsible for the check but that’s not going to go down well.
No reason why Deliveroo couldn't be made responsible.
All it would take is a change in the law. The law can be whatever Parliament votes for it to be.
Fix the mess. That's your job as a Government.
I take it you didn’t read the actual issue. So let’s try a different example which is how do you determine at every point of every delivery that the person you think is delivering the order is the person actually delivering the order
Spot checks.
The police setup Deliveroo / Just Eat accounts, and order a pizza or six.
If the person who delivers the food is not allowed to work in the UK, Deliveroo / Just Eat gets 100k fine. Every time it happens, the fine doubles.
Just Eat / Deliveroo would rapidly find a technical solution to the problem.
Knowing our police force they would ask for delivery to the police station
Free food for the cops, awesome. (In their minds).
New Deliveroo policy: if it's donuts, make sure the delivery driver has the right to work.
Our local BP service station has an M&S attached. Most times we visit, the police are on site.
Not to tackle crime, but to get their supplies of coffee and donuts.
Snap! Exactly same here on the A12 Eastern Avenue!
Pretty similar to the one by me, especially as it’s very close to the local cop shop.
Just rewatched Wag the Dog, a darkly satirical movie from 1997 about the White House creating a carefully scripted war right before an important election to distract voters from a sex scandal involving an underaged girl. Really. https://x.com/MattKibbe/status/2029253763798589801
I’m in the USA this week. If Dubai is the Canary Wharf of the desert, then Orlando truly is the Milton Keynes of the swamps.
Two things are really noticeable about the local reaction to the Iran SMO.
Firstly, whilst I’d say UK opinion is relatively nuanced with quite a number of people on the fence (and this is reflected in media coverage), it is way way more negative here. I’m struggling to find anyone who thinks the war is a good idea, whatever side of politics they’re on. Outside Fox, the media coverage is almost universally negative too. The old isolationist reflex in the US remains strong.
Secondly, again perhaps unsurprisingly, they’re not talking about it much. It’s very much in the background. Domestic politics as always trumps foreign affairs here.
Wait until gas goes through $4.... Then they'll talk.
A hastily arranged news conference from Sir Keir Starmer is imminent.
International Law...not involved....defensive actions....
Challenging Trump to a duel?
I imagine Trump in a duel would be the one after agreeing on walking 10 paces away from one another before turning and shooting, would get to about 1 and shoot.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
You had the numbers the wrong way round, I think. 46 to 34 for a less offensive posture and no retaliatory strikes* by the UK
* Arguably the strikes ordered by Starmer cover civilian areas and should actually be in the 46% ,ie the distinction between "Purely defensive" and "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK" is moot.
A hastily arranged news conference from Sir Keir Starmer is imminent.
International Law...not involved....defensive actions....
Challenging Trump to a duel?
I imagine Trump in a duel would be the one after agreeing on walking 10 paces away from one another before turning and shooting, would get to about 1 and shoot.
Whereas Hegseth would turn up with a machine gun.
And wouldn't manage one pace before opening fire.
"They are MY rules of engagement...."
Pistols at dawn ? He'd still be in bed nursing a hangover.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
You had the numbers the wrong way round, I think. 46 to 34 for a less offensive posture and no retaliatory strikes* by the UK
* Arguably the strikes ordered by Starmer cover civilian areas and should actually be in the 46% ,ie the distinction between "Purely defensive" and "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK" is moot.
No i was saying 46% for what we are doing (defence only) to 34 for more offensive posturing (UK itself hitting missile launchers or joining the war outright) I.e. moderate support for the governments position but they are seen as doing it dreadfully
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
You had the numbers the wrong way round, I think. 46 to 34 for a less offensive posture and no retaliatory strikes* by the UK
* Arguably the strikes ordered by Starmer cover civilian areas and should actually be in the 46% ,ie the distinction between "Purely defensive" and "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK" is moot.
No i was saying 46% for what we are doing (defence only) to 34 for more offensive posturing (UK itself hitting missile launchers or joining the war outright) I.e. moderate support for the governments position but they are seen as doing it dreadfully
OK, but the government actually signed up for "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK 26" leaving just 8% supporting joining in with the Americans fully.
George Cottrell, an aristocratic banker, convicted fraudster and backer of the Reform UK leader, lost $550,000 (£411,000) last month after placing a wager on the Polymarket trading platform that the US would not bomb the Middle Eastern country.
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
The same polling has support for what we are doing 46 to 34 for a more offensive posture and retaliatory strikes by the UK That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Are you sure? This table says most people are opposed to using UK Bases for retaliatory strikes:
The paradox we need to explain is why the British public mostly think Starmer is handling the conflict badly, while also thinking his approach is the right one.
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
I would not
Who do you think has made more mistakes re the Iran war - SKS or AMW?
See above. Starmer is indecisive and weak. Its a known.lnown.
Neither/Nor is the publc's preferred position. See:
I think you have added the numbers incorrectly because Starmer agreed to retaliatory strikes. You could make a case for people thinking Starmer has gone too far, but that doesn't explain the Tory and Reform supporter positions.
The figures are for what the UK military should be ordered to do
You had the numbers the wrong way round, I think. 46 to 34 for a less offensive posture and no retaliatory strikes* by the UK
* Arguably the strikes ordered by Starmer cover civilian areas and should actually be in the 46% ,ie the distinction between "Purely defensive" and "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK" is moot.
No i was saying 46% for what we are doing (defence only) to 34 for more offensive posturing (UK itself hitting missile launchers or joining the war outright) I.e. moderate support for the governments position but they are seen as doing it dreadfully
OK, but the government actually signed up for "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK 26" leaving just 8% supporting joining in with the Americans fully.
They did not. The UK is not attacking missile launchers.
Mahmood offfering £10,000 per person with a limit of £40,000 for asylum seekers to return to their country
Not sure that will go down well
Public - Give us solutions to the asylum seeker crisis Govt - Here is a partial solution that saves money and reduces the scale of the crisis Public - Not like that!
The public would prefer a solution which doesn't drive up the numbers of people trying to get here.
What about this -
1) increase the fine for illegal employment or paying less than minimum wage to £100k per instance 2) break the “ltd” and “subcontractor” shielding, used to evade (1) 3) half the fine goes to those giving evidence 4) if those giving evidence need it, they get indefinite leave to remain, plus their £50k 5) announce the law, when passed will come into force 12 months from the passage of the bill.
Call it the Employment Protection Bill.
Edit: this specifically targets the exploiters. Who are the modern equivalent of the worst Victorian factory owners.
Just forcing deliveroo, just eat and Uber Eats to only use people with the right to work would fix half the issue
I often walk past one of the asylum seeker hotels in the toon when parking in Manors and walking into Newcastle. There are a fair few of their bikes outside
There’s no will to deal with it so it persists.
There is a will to deal with the issue, it’s just that Deliveroo and co are doing everything possible to keep the situation as it currently exists.
I was chatting with the civil service policy officer about it last year and it sounded a nightmare trying to find a solution to the current mess now they’ve been ruled as self employed
These bikes that zoom about on pavements and cycle lanes, seemingly without the need to pedal. They seem to me to be the easy enforcement option, should one be needed.
The Police don't regularly enforce the law in respect illegal bikes (electric or motorcycles) because the only realistic way to stop these people if they try to get away is to knock them off, which opens up PC Plod to investigation, dismissal and possible charges if the scrote on the bike gets hurt.
I understand that, from time to time, the vehicles in question aren't moving. Perhaps that's when they could be checked for their legality
Sure, why hasn't anyone thought of that before...
A stationery ebike is likely to be so because it's unattended - if it has a rider they'll be off like a rabbit, and we have the scenario I mentioned before.
Checking its legality would entail taking it away to have the engine output, top speed and functioning of any pedal assist checked. How do the police notify the owner their property has been seized if they have no idea who the owner is? How do they return the bike if it proves to be legal? What happens if the bike is locked or chained in place, can the police defeat those locks and do they have to pay compensation for that if the bike is legal?
It's not even faintly feasible to have the police just snatching ebikes off the street at random. This problem won't go away until there's a mandatory registration scheme for ebikes.
Comments
https://x.com/ft/status/2029218458299256848?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://news.sky.com/video/share-13515634
It's never been contested in court, since successive Congresses (as with yesterday's Senate vote) have avoided confrontation.
The current adventure, unlike Iraq, is highly unpopular at the outset. If this war isn't quickly concluded, then it could well be contested after the midterms.
Complete and utter lack of understanding of history
Constituency
SNP 37
Lab 18
Ref 17
Con 12
LD 9
Green 6
Oth 1
List
SNP 33
Ref 17
Lab 17
Con 13
LD 9
Green 9
Oth 2 (including Alba 1)
Reform going a bit floppy, they need a wee turquoise pill to get them going again.
But just await the howls if deliveroo was shut down and folk had to pay for minimum wage employees to deliver.
Or, even worse, have to get off their arse themselves.
I dint give a fuck what Starmer says. He is weak and indecisive.
You can't spot the obvious flaw in that statement?
The answer is in the tables I think. Broadly Labour, Lib Dems and some Green supporters think he's handling the situation well. Tories, Reformists and other Greens think he's doing badly.
The explanation is a simple one. Tories, Reformists and some Greens would praise Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor before they would endorse anything Keir Starmer is doing, even if they actually think it's the right thing.
Old style cafe culture https://centralgrandcafe.hu/en/home/
A darker side of history https://www.terrorhaza.hu/hu/
I suspect if Reform were in government, and fully backing Trump, that might poll even worse, since the war itself is not popular.
That suggests moderate general support for his position but that he is doing it very badly
Market share, volume of sales, profit are different concepts. Similarly party popularity, voter popularity, and voting intention are different. I know you know this (you were the one who propounded the "gross popularity as predictor" theory), but the casual reader may not.
And brought in tens of thousands of new members.
Wasn't the judgement that they were all self employed what stymied the planned reforms?
Keir Starmer doesn’t deny @ShippersUnbound story that he pushed to allow the US to carry out defensive strikes from British bases but was blocked by his Cabinet, including Ed Miliband
He says that on Friday there was no formal request from the US, but that’s not the same thing. He is not denying the fact of the discussion at the NSC
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-2 Neither/Nor is the public's preferred position. See:
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-3
They do seem to take the time to try and get things right. *
It is SO refeshing after Boris "Whu..? Whut..? WTF?" Johnson.
(Ducks behind sofa with calendar on head, holding rolling pin, in anticipation of reactions.)
* This is not a claim that they actually get things right.
On here
Purely defensive 46
Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK 26
Gung ho war 8
If that means they need to pay NICs or IR35 etc as a result, so be it.
Aliyev doesn’t mince his words against Iran:
"No other head of state besides me has visited any Iranian embassy. To fail to appreciate this, to disregard it, to show themselves as lowly ingrates like this brings honor to no one.
These dishonorable people who carried out this terrorist act against us will be sorry for this”
Safer than sending them to Kuwait.
Not to tackle crime, but to get their supplies of coffee and donuts.
https://x.com/dunc_saboteur/status/2029511660235554909
"The Special Relationship does not exist."
"Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
Not that one.
It's like asking a West Brom supporter do they support Blues or Villa more or neither
The answer is 70% support blues or via a more 30% neither.
The question is
Do you agree with Keir Starmer refusing to all US to use UK bases to take offensive action against Iran
Yes or no or don't know
Two things are really noticeable about the local reaction to the Iran SMO.
Firstly, whilst I’d say UK opinion is relatively nuanced with quite a number of people on the fence (and this is reflected in media coverage), it is way way more negative here. I’m struggling to find anyone who thinks the war is a good idea, whatever side of politics they’re on. Outside Fox, the media coverage is almost universally negative too. The old isolationist reflex in the US remains strong.
Secondly, again perhaps unsurprisingly, they’re not talking about it much. It’s very much in the background. Domestic politics as always trumps foreign affairs here.
They may also be awaiting a reported stolen or speeding vehicle
It's an illogical question therefore.
https://www.ft.com/content/73efc9ce-4d57-4a96-9f3f-d9fda81b1114
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK received a second large donation from businessman Christopher Harborne, pushing the party’s fundraising far ahead of that for Labour and the Conservatives last year.
Harborne gave Reform £3mn in November, adding to the £9mn he donated in August, a sum that was the biggest single donation to a UK political party by a living donor.
Harborne, an aviation entrepreneur and crypto investor, was born in Britain but has lived in Thailand for the past two decades. He gave large sums to Farage’s previous political vehicle, the Brexit party, in 2019 and 2020.
And wouldn't manage one pace before opening fire.
"They are MY rules of engagement...."
* Arguably the strikes ordered by Starmer cover civilian areas and should actually be in the 46% ,ie the distinction between "Purely defensive" and "Retaliatory strikes on missile launchers by UK" is moot.
There's a chance...
He'd still be in bed nursing a hangover.
I.e. moderate support for the governments position but they are seen as doing it dreadfully
India by >100 runs is my fear
NEW THREAD
A stationery ebike is likely to be so because it's unattended - if it has a rider they'll be off like a rabbit, and we have the scenario I mentioned before.
Checking its legality would entail taking it away to have the engine output, top speed and functioning of any pedal assist checked. How do the police notify the owner their property has been seized if they have no idea who the owner is? How do they return the bike if it proves to be legal? What happens if the bike is locked or chained in place, can the police defeat those locks and do they have to pay compensation for that if the bike is legal?
It's not even faintly feasible to have the police just snatching ebikes off the street at random. This problem won't go away until there's a mandatory registration scheme for ebikes.
What's the difference between Bing Crosby and Walt Disney?
Well, Bing sings...
...and Walt disnae. 😎
Trump insists he must be involved in choosing the next Iranian Leader similar to what happened in Venezuela!
He’s insane .