In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.
There are only two people in the race I'd consider voting for: Kendall and Corbyn. They're the only two offering any sort of change. Kendall has interesting stuff to say, but part of me thinks Corbyn will be the one who opposes better and it may surprise the Tories. Not that I have a vote anyway.
If Labour won every single Green and LibDem voter they would be on a share of 43.1%.
According to Electoral Calculus, they would gain 59 seats and the Tories would lose 46. Labour would have 291 seats to the Tories 285.
This assumes Labour take no votes from the SNP.
I think the original analysis suggest Labour just pile up votes in seats they already hold if they take Green and Lib Dem votes.
I've just done my own calculation for all seats in England and Labour transferring all LibDem and Green votes to Labour, constituency by constituency. Labour gain 49 seats. I haven't had time to do Wales and Scotland
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...
Yes - Of the 49 gains, 6 are from the LibDems and one is Brighton Pavillion.
And yes - it does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current voters.
But it isn't a prediction! It is just an interesting thought experiment.
Equally - there are going to be some North Korean esque majorities in places... thinking Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central, Cambridge...
And if the French are not interested in solving the problem ? We might fine the lorry driver, but we don't put the immigrant back on a bus to France, he is still in the UK and on benefits, so he is where he wants to be. We also have a worse than piss poor record of expelling people that fail our appeals process, so once he is in, he is more than likely in for good.
The French are interested in solving the problem but nowhere near as interested as we are. Which is why we need to co-operate with them on our land.
Your argument seems to have become now that we should get the French to let every migrants in because we realistically don't expel people and you don't want us to co-operate with another sovereign nation inside their sovereign territory. How's that help?
Co-operating with the French on a problem in French sovereign land is obviously necessary. If you can't even admit that then you're in complete reality denial.
You are the one in denial, the French are only interested in solving the problem to the extent that the illegal immigrants don't end up in France. As a thought experiment, what would happen if we let everyone through the tunnel, they got to the British ECO, "Do you have an EU Passport/ID ? No. Do you have a valid visa ? No. Please wait here, the bus back to France will be leaving in an hour".
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.
Could you cite me a source for those "hundred of thousands" ? Seems rather larger than I remember.
I've been reading the thread and noticed the discussion on how many seats Labour would win if they managed to capture every LibDem and Green vote in every constituency. (Purely an intellectual exercise since it is never going to happen)
I went back to my Excel Election Results database and crunched the figures for 5 minutes.
For the record, the answer is that Labour would win 60 seats.
From Conservative 45 (41 England, 4 Wales) From Greens 1 (1 England - Brighton Pavillion) - all of them due to the proposition above From LibDems 8 (6 England, 1, Scotland, 1 Wales) - all of them due to the proposition above From Plaid Cymru 2 (2 in Wales, obviously) From SNP 4 (4 in scotland)
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
What alternative actions could we make if we were out of the EU ? Serious question. Suspect there is a lot more that we could be doing now.
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).
Old Soviet joke: An old woman asks her grand-daughter 'Do they teach you at school about Communism?' 'Yes Granny,' the girl replies. 'They explain that when we achieve full Communism, we will have meat and bread in all the shops, and we will live in nice houses, and have good clothes to wear.' The old woman sighed ecstatically. 'Ah that will be lovely - just like it was under the Tsar!'
In the time of the Cold War, there were three dogs, an american dog, a polish dog and a russian dog. they’re having a visit to the U.S., and the american dog was telling them how you have to bark long enough and then sombody comes along and gives you some meat. The polish dog said what’s meat. The russian dog said what’s bark. (Reagan)
If anyone wants a really good laugh, there are some brilliant Soviet jokes here:
You've got to admire the courage of the Russians to tell them. I particularly enjoy the ones about the KGB, for example:
'A flock of sheep were stopped by frontier guards at the Russo-Finnish border. “Why do you wish to leave Russia?” the guards asked them. “It’s the NKVD”, replied the terrified sheep. “Beria’s ordered them to arrest all elephants.” “But you aren’t elephants!” the guards pointed out. “Try telling that to the NKVD!”'
If I was heading to the continent, I can't imagine I'd go via Calais now.
Treble the height of the fence, stick another one up inside the existing fence, and place 10,000 volt electric wires between the two fences.
When we went recently we got re-routed to Dunkirk. FSDS Ferries are re-routing all their Calais passengers to Dunkirk, P&O Ferries were going to Calais still.
Oh dear...if England can't get 3-4 wickets early could be a very long couple of days again.
My issue with the current England team and has been for quite a while, we have so little variation in the bowling department. 3 right arm medium fast bowlers and two part-time and inconsistent right arm off-spinners.
If the pitch is decent and not very fast (which most wickets these days are), we don't really have much to force a wicket.
And Finn is back (head in hands)...he will never be the bowler he was before somebody f##ked up his action. He can't bowl those 90+ mph balls with the good accuracy coming from a great height that he started his career. Even his "remodeled" action looks a disaster.
If I was heading to the continent, I can't imagine I'd go via Calais now.
Treble the height of the fence, stick another one up inside the existing fence, and place 10,000 volt electric wires between the two fences.
From experience, it's not worth it. Calais is a nasty place, particularly at night with marauding gangs on the roads around Cite Europe. Diverting around Stack in Kent adds an hour to the journey, and Eurotunnel would appear to be making no obvious investment in replacing filthy 20 year old trains, and cramped facilities. Take a ferry to any of the other ports.
Mr. Antifrank, of course, polls have been very wrong before.
In recent history, they've gotten the UK General Election, the Greek referendum and the Israeli election wrong.
Well, yes. But it's not just polls. We have the constituency nominations and the general mood music, and the views of well-informed commentators like Stephen Bush.
And pointing the other way right now, we have what? A feeling of "no, that can't be right".
It's vaguely reminiscent of the period when everyone said that the SNP wouldn't win 30 seats in Scotland at the general election. We know how that panned out.
Even the way the bookies look like they're going to be taken to the cleaners is eerily similiar...
I've been reading the thread and noticed the discussion on how many seats Labour would win if they managed to capture every LibDem and Green vote in every constituency. (Purely an intellectual exercise since it is never going to happen)
I went back to my Excel Election Results database and crunched the figures for 5 minutes.
For the record, the answer is that Labour would win 60 seats.
From Conservative 45 (41 England, 4 Wales) From Greens 1 (1 England - Brighton Pavillion) - all of them due to the proposition above From LibDems 8 (6 England, 1, Scotland, 1 Wales) - all of them due to the proposition above From Plaid Cymru 2 (2 in Wales, obviously) From SNP 4 (4 in scotland)
Oooo.. could you do it with Con gaining all of UKIPs vote, and then maybe half of UKIPs vote? What a way to start the day...
Oh dear...if England can't get 3-4 wickets early could be a very long couple of days again.
My issue with the current England team and has been for quite a while, we have so little variation. 3 right arm medium fast bowlers and two part-time and inconsistent right arm off-spinners.
If the pitch is decent and not very fast (which most wickets these days are), we don't really have much to force a wicket.
Surely 4 - Anderson, Broad, Stokes and whichever of Wood or Finn is playing?
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.
Could you cite me a source for those "hundred of thousands" ? Seems rather larger than I remember.
Oh dear...if England can't get 3-4 wickets early could be a very long couple of days again.
My issue with the current England team and has been for quite a while, we have so little variation. 3 right arm medium fast bowlers and two part-time and inconsistent right arm off-spinners.
If the pitch is decent and not very fast (which most wickets these days are), we don't really have much to force a wicket.
Surely 4 - Anderson, Broad, Stokes and whichever of Wood or Finn is playing?
Oh dear...if England can't get 3-4 wickets early could be a very long couple of days again.
My issue with the current England team and has been for quite a while, we have so little variation. 3 right arm medium fast bowlers and two part-time and inconsistent right arm off-spinners.
If the pitch is decent and not very fast (which most wickets these days are), we don't really have much to force a wicket.
Surely 4 - Anderson, Broad, Stokes and whichever of Wood or Finn is playing?
Stokes I put in the same category as Ali. Potentially they could be very good, although I don't think Stokes bowling will ever match say a motivated / fit / hungry Flintoff. The problem at the moment with Stokes and Ali is they bowl 1-2 balls of utter crap every over and we can't build any pressure.
And Stokes is yes another right arm fast-medium...they all bowl at that nice pace for a batsman when they are in.
Flintoff made an interesting point last night on the radio saying that some bowlers pace / action is just lovely when you get in. He gave the example of Brett Lee, he said once you get your eye in it never feels like 90+ as his action was so smooth you just see the ball all the way, say in comparison to Mitchell Johnson.
England's seam attack is basically the same, just that nice pace for a top quality batsman.
The French have no interest in solving the problem, they simply want to get rid of as many migrants as possible. Securing the port isn't difficult if the will is there, they want more cooperation from us
The French have no interest in solving the problem, they simply want to get rid of as many migrants as possible. Securing the port isn't difficult if the will is there, they want more cooperation from us
On topic: someone said quite rightly yesterday that if Burnham were polling this well, he'd be 1.5 or less. Now of course Corbyn is not Burnham, but still, the difference is remarkable.
I decided to swallow my pride at having sold out my 30/1 and back instead at 9/4 although as OGH points out, laying Burnham could have been a stronger option.
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
On topic: someone said quite rightly yesterday that if Burnham were polling this well, he'd be 1.5 or less. Now of course Corbyn is not Burnham, but still, the difference is remarkable.
I decided to swallow my pride at having sold out my 30/1 and back instead at 9/4 although as OGH points out, laying Burnham could have been a stronger option.
If Burnham was polling double anyone else I suspect he'd be 1.2 or less. Either the polls are categorically wrong again or JCICWNBPM
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
I decided to swallow my pride at having sold out my 30/1 and back instead at 9/4 although as OGH points out, laying Burnham could have been a stronger option.
This is important to do in betting, look at the position NOW rather than wistfully thinking of what you could have won earlier.
Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?
What realistic action do you want to take.
Sending 2Para to occupy Calais is not realistic.
All we can do, effectively, is one or more of the following:
(1) Close the tunnel, permanently or temporarily (2) Strengthen the fences (3) Send more border control people to Calais, within the constraints of our agreements with France (4) Work politically to get France to address the issue properly (5) Let them all in
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.
Could you cite me a source for those "hundred of thousands" ? Seems rather larger than I remember.
and they all came through Calais ? Not a single one presented themselves at one of our many embassies and arrived by plane ? So you actually meant a little over one hundred thousand taking the highest three months ever and extrapolating it over a year
In anycase the problem is highlighted in the first article
In just three months over the summer, 29,100 arrived in the UK claiming asylum - the equivalent of 116,400 a year and the highest figure in the nation's history.
But while 90 per cent were judged to have no genuine case for asylum, only 3,565 were sent home.
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.
Could you cite me a source for those "hundred of thousands" ? Seems rather larger than I remember.
Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.
The rule is not the first country that they encounter. It's the first country where they *register* (as we are seeing with Hungary). If the French make it impossible to register they are playing by the rules, if not the spirit.
I've been reading the thread and noticed the discussion on how many seats Labour would win if they managed to capture every LibDem and Green vote in every constituency. (Purely an intellectual exercise since it is never going to happen)
I went back to my Excel Election Results database and crunched the figures for 5 minutes.
For the record, the answer is that Labour would win 60 seats.
From Conservative 45 (41 England, 4 Wales) From Greens 1 (1 England - Brighton Pavillion) - all of them due to the proposition above From LibDems 8 (6 England, 1, Scotland, 1 Wales) - all of them due to the proposition above From Plaid Cymru 2 (2 in Wales, obviously) From SNP 4 (4 in scotland)
60 does give a ceiling though for how well things COULD work out for Labour - in this non-reality based Universe.
It does require this to be the most polarised 2-party election since who knows when. Back in our reality based Universe, I expect a Corbyn-led Labour Party would result in the widest spread of votes ever for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties.
Do failed asylum seekers receive any sort of state aid btw ?
"Refused asylum seekers are not entitled to benefits but may qualify for some support from the Home Office, Visas and Immigration.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
I think he's overcomplicating it. Mine would be three:
1) Bat better; 2) Bowl better; 3) Field better.
LOL....The big three I think England's problems to solve are:
1) Opening Batsman...Lyth isn't good enough.
2) Some sort of variation in the bowling. Maybe Rashid can provide it, maybe we need to see if we can find a left arm..It is a shame that it looks like Tymal Mills is finished in cricket, as he could have been the fastest bowler in the world and is left armer.
3) Another middle order batter that is a head down bore you to death type. When things aren't going well we have basically Cook and Root who can do that, but too many that you can never see batting for 6hrs without worrying about scoring a run.
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
It already is our problem, the economy in East Kent is being crippled
Do failed asylum seekers receive any sort of state aid btw ?
"Refused asylum seekers are not entitled to benefits but may qualify for some support from the Home Office, Visas and Immigration.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
That £35.39 is far more than they'd get in Eritrea or even errm France! I think. Asylum is probably an area where we should be in harmony with the French system tbh so at least any additional factual incentive to move here is removed. The english language and perception of the incentives will probably remain, providing some pull still but not alot we can do about that.
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
It already is our problem, the economy in East Kent is being crippled
The unemployment rate in Kent's towns is comparable to other struggling seaside resorts.
I can't make out a significant immigrant/asylum-related spike.
Do failed asylum seekers receive any sort of state aid btw ?
"Refused asylum seekers are not entitled to benefits but may qualify for some support from the Home Office, Visas and Immigration.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Do failed asylum seekers receive any sort of state aid btw ?
"Refused asylum seekers are not entitled to benefits but may qualify for some support from the Home Office, Visas and Immigration.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
Do failed asylum seekers receive any sort of state aid btw ?
"Refused asylum seekers are not entitled to benefits but may qualify for some support from the Home Office, Visas and Immigration.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
That £35.39 is far more than they'd get in Eritrea or even errm France! I think. Asylum is probably an area where we should be in harmony with the French system tbh so at least any additional factual incentive to move here is removed. The english language and perception of the incentives will probably remain, providing some pull still but not alot we can do about that.
In a BBC article, they claimed that the package of benefits / support for those claiming Asylum was basically the same, if not better in France.
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
6. Send all asylum claimants arriving from Calais back to France as is expected by the treaties we both signed.
My other post addressed this.
If the asylum claimants don't *register* in France, France has no obligation to take them back.
Sangatte is set up to register the claimants. But French take a long time and make it very difficult. And the site is located very conveniently for the claimants to debunk to the UK.
2) Some sort of variation in the bowling. Maybe Rashid can provide it, maybe we need to see if we can find a left arm..It is a shame that it looks like Tymal Mills is finished in cricket, as he could have been the fastest bowler in the world and is left armer.
I don't think he was ever as good or indeed as quick as Mark Footitt, of Derbyshire, who is very fast, accurate and a left armer. Of course he'll never play for England as he plays for Derbyshire (admittedly injuries haven't helped either).
3) Another middle order batter that is a head down bore you to death type. When things aren't going well we have basically Cook and Root who can do that, but too many that you can never see batting for 6hrs without worrying about scoring a run.
I agree. James Taylor of Nottinghamshire is probably our best bet there, and will likely have replaced Bell at three by the end of the series the way things are going. Helpfully, he has multiple gears so can bat as the situation requires in a way that, say, Cook can't.
I think he's overcomplicating it. Mine would be three:
1) Bat better; 2) Bowl better; 3) Field better.
LOL....The big three I think England's problems to solve are:
1) Opening Batsman...Lyth isn't good enough.
2) Some sort of variation in the bowling. Maybe Rashid can provide it, maybe we need to see if we can find a left arm..It is a shame that it looks like Tymal Mills is finished in cricket, as he could have been the fastest bowler in the world and is left armer.
3) Another middle order batter that is a head down bore you to death type. When things aren't going well we have basically Cook and Root who can do that, but too many that you can never see batting for 6hrs without worrying about scoring a run.
At some point Surrey's Zafar Ansari should be able to provide you with 2 of those 3 (Cook style opener for Surrey, but could easily bat bore you to death middle order if needed + rapidly improving slow left armer - see http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/match/804379.html for a recent Div 2 match v Glocs which gives a good example of his skill)
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
It already is our problem, the economy in East Kent is being crippled
And would be crippled ten times more if the camps were on our side of the border or the Chunnel was closed altogether as some of the bizarre suggestions we've seen so far.
There hasn't been a single plausible alternative to co-operating with the French posted here yet.
Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?
What realistic action do you want to take.
Sending 2Para to occupy Calais is not realistic.
All we can do, effectively, is one or more of the following:
(1) Close the tunnel, permanently or temporarily (2) Strengthen the fences (3) Send more border control people to Calais, within the constraints of our agreements with France (4) Work politically to get France to address the issue properly (5) Let them all in
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
May and Cameron had better hope that 2,3 & 4 work then, because if there's a terrorist atrocity in mainland UK that's attributed to illegals shown to have crossed from Calais, they're in a whole pile of doo doo.
All the many thousands of nice middle class UK tourists caught up to the chaos are another slow burning headache for them in any EU referendum.
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
6. Send all asylum claimants arriving from Calais back to France as is expected by the treaties we both signed.
My other post addressed this.
If the asylum claimants don't *register* in France, France has no obligation to take them back.
Sangatte is set up to register the claimants. But French take a long time and make it very difficult. And the site is located very conveniently for the claimants to debunk to the UK.
Philip is making very good arguments about the need for French efforts here. But I do think there may be ways to leverage them a bit more. Perhaps a new campaign to cut the CAP and to eliminate the Strasbourg parliament? We could then agree to drop those campaigns in exchange for France registering these people and arresting the vandals.
2) Some sort of variation in the bowling. Maybe Rashid can provide it, maybe we need to see if we can find a left arm..It is a shame that it looks like Tymal Mills is finished in cricket, as he could have been the fastest bowler in the world and is left armer.
I don't think he was ever as good or indeed as quick as Mark Footitt, of Derbyshire, who is very fast, accurate and a left armer. Of course he'll never play for England as he plays for Derbyshire (admittedly injuries haven't helped either).
3) Another middle order batter that is a head down bore you to death type. When things aren't going well we have basically Cook and Root who can do that, but too many that you can never see batting for 6hrs without worrying about scoring a run.
I agree. James Taylor of Nottinghamshire is probably our best bet there, and will likely have replaced Bell at three by the end of the series the way things are going. Helpfully, he has multiple gears so can bat as the situation requires in a way that, say, Cook can't.
Agree with #1. Robson wasn't up to it, but neither is Lyth. There just doesn't seem to be another candidate out there at the moment.
Disagree with #2. Mills when fit was substantially over 90 before they even really worked with him to increase strength, fitness, action...and the pros who faced in the nets say he was the fastest bowler they faced. Footitt has worked hard to increase his pace and now hits 90. Going back to what Flintoff said, Mills action appears to make the pros feel his pace. But his degenerative back condition means that Mills wont play the long form of cricket now.
Taylor I am never certain about, but I think Bell form, age, mental state means really we should have bitten the bullet.
But England approach is definitely safety first, no Rashid, no Footitt, instead going back to Finn.
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
It already is our problem, the economy in East Kent is being crippled
And would be crippled ten times more if the camps were on our side of the border or the Chunnel was closed altogether as some of the bizarre suggestions we've seen so far.
There hasn't been a single plausible alternative to co-operating with the French posted here yet.
Of course we have to cooperate, there is no alternative as the French have no interest. If they're not blockading the port of Calais they're setting fire to tyres and allowing thousands into the tunnel. Meanwhile for several years our govt has sat on its hands and blamed the French.
No lorry parks on the M20/M2, no extra staff sent to Calais, no will to resolve the issue whatsoever
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Of course the judgment and appeals process can take months or even years.
That's what we should be working on.
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
In principle, the easiest group to return rapidly whence they came are those who have crossed the channel from another safe country. The Geneva convention, under which we operate and by which we are bound, specifies that asylum seekers should seek sanctuary in the first safe country that they come to; they do not have the right to shop around for the country offering the most favourable conditions. Consequently, if they pass through one safe country to another, the end recipient has the right to return them under the Geneva convention, yet people pour in from France in significant numbers and are not returned.
From 1995 to 1997, many asylum seekers were returned to France under a bilateral agreement that was negotiated by the Conservative Government but allowed to lapse in autumn 1979. ...
The bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and France specified that we had not only the right to return unacceptable asylum seekers to France within 24 hours but the obligation to do so or, if there were practical obstacles to overcome, to state within 24 hours that that was our intention. The agreement reflected the cordial relations that prevailed then between the United Kingdom and France. It was reciprocal and allowed movement both ways on equal terms although, in practice, the flow was largely one way. We were able to return large numbers of asylum seekers who had entered the country from France.
... It worked well: both sides had the right to terminate it with two months‘ notice but neither did so, because they were satisfied with it and accepted that it was a logical, sensible arrangement. ... [it has been] ... superseded by the Dublin convention, which came into effect in September 1997. The asylum seeker aspects were allowed to lapse at that point and have not been renewed.
The Dublin convention was intended to make general what the bilateral agreement had achieved for Britain and France; namely, the return of asylum seekers to the first safe country that they reached in the European Union. In practice, the convention failed to achieve that. Instead, it makes the return of asylum seekers more difficult and complex than was previously the case. ...
It was certainly inexcusable that, once the problems emerged, the Government did not renegotiate the bilateral agreement with France, within the terms of the Dublin convention, to restore speedy "refoulement", as the conventions call the return of asylum seekers to previous safe countries. ... Germany and Denmark have agreed a similar bilateral agreement to the one that we had with France, and it works well.
I'd set the state paid rate for lawyers representing failed asylum seekers at minimum wage too....
I'd rather have a professional dealing with claims than someone who might be doing it part time or accepting dosh from claimants off the record. Any lawyer will tell you what a drag it is when the other side cannot represent themselves properly. You have to do all the work instead.
Agree with #1. Robson wasn't up to it, but neither is Lyth. There just doesn't seem to be another candidate out there at the moment.
Disagree with #2. Mills when fit was substantially over 90 before they even really worked with him to increase strength, fitness, action...and the pros who faced in the nets say he was the fastest bowler they faced. Footitt has worked hard to increase his pace and now hits 90. Going back to what Flintoff said, Mills action appears to make the pros feel his pace. But his degenerative back condition means that Mills wont play the long form of cricket now.
Taylor I am never certain about, but I think Bell form, age, mental state means really we should have bitten the bullet.
But England approach is definitely safety first, no Rashid, no Footitt, instead going back to Finn.
I think the key worry about Bell is not so much that he's not scoring runs - that happens to the best batsmen (even Bradman had bad patches) - but the way he's not scoring them. It looks as though he can't move his feet fast enough to play defensively any more and is being clean bowled by deliveries that are, if we're honest, not really terrifyingly difficult for a player of Test class. He's starting to look alarmingly like Andrew Strauss in that ghastly last year - a fine player who's lost it.
I've always defended Bell and I love watching him bat, but Taylor is surely the better option now. Let Bell go and captain Warwickshire to multiple championships to round off his career. (Edited after I realised I had accidentally typed 'not honest' instead of 'honest'.)
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
Its the Mirror, it is beyond a joke of a comic....
"Vince Cable’s well-regarded strategies have been slung in the shredder and “For Sale” signs slung around the Royal Mail."
For instance....This would be the same Vince Cable who has already part-privatized the Royal Mail and other than that can anybody name anything that Cable did in his 5 years?
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
Its the Mirror, it is beyond a joke of a comic....
"Vince Cable’s well-regarded strategies have been slung in the shredder and “For Sale” signs slung around the Royal Mail."
For instance....This would be the same Vince Cable who has already part-privatized the Royal Mail and other than that can anybody name anything that Cable did in his 5 years?
Tuition fees. Not the worst of decisions in practice, but so ineptly presented that they are rapidly strangling Higher Education, and of course destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
Agree with #1. Robson wasn't up to it, but neither is Lyth. There just doesn't seem to be another candidate out there at the moment.
Disagree with #2. Mills when fit was substantially over 90 before they even really worked with him to increase strength, fitness, action...and the pros who faced in the nets say he was the fastest bowler they faced. Footitt has worked hard to increase his pace and now hits 90. Going back to what Flintoff said, Mills action appears to make the pros feel his pace. But his degenerative back condition means that Mills wont play the long form of cricket now.
Taylor I am never certain about, but I think Bell form, age, mental state means really we should have bitten the bullet.
But England approach is definitely safety first, no Rashid, no Footitt, instead going back to Finn.
I think the key worry about Bell is not so much that he's not scoring runs - that happens to the best batsmen (even Bradman had bad patches) - but the way he's not scoring them. It looks as though he can't move his feet fast enough to play defensively any more and is being clean bowled by deliveries that are, if we're honest, not really terrifyingly difficult for a player of Test class. He's starting to look alarmingly like Andrew Strauss in that ghastly last year - a fine player who's lost it.
I've always defended Bell and I love watching him bat, but Taylor is surely the better option now. Let Bell go and captain Warwickshire to multiple championships to round off his career. (Edited after I realised I had accidentally typed 'not honest' instead of 'honest'.)
The big problem with Bell is that he only scores runs on good pitches, with England already doing well. When was the last time he rescued England, like Cook (occasionally), Root, etc?
Good to see an early wicket, I think the wicket is improving.
Agree with #1. Robson wasn't up to it, but neither is Lyth. There just doesn't seem to be another candidate out there at the moment.
Disagree with #2. Mills when fit was substantially over 90 before they even really worked with him to increase strength, fitness, action...and the pros who faced in the nets say he was the fastest bowler they faced. Footitt has worked hard to increase his pace and now hits 90. Going back to what Flintoff said, Mills action appears to make the pros feel his pace. But his degenerative back condition means that Mills wont play the long form of cricket now.
Taylor I am never certain about, but I think Bell form, age, mental state means really we should have bitten the bullet.
But England approach is definitely safety first, no Rashid, no Footitt, instead going back to Finn.
I think the key worry about Bell is not so much that he's not scoring runs - that happens to the best batsmen (even Bradman had bad patches) - but the way he's not scoring them. It looks as though he can't move his feet fast enough to play defensively any more and is being clean bowled by deliveries that are, if we're honest, not really terrifyingly difficult for a player of Test class. He's starting to look alarmingly like Andrew Strauss in that ghastly last year - a fine player who's lost it.
I've always defended Bell and I love watching him bat, but Taylor is surely the better option now. Let Bell go and captain Warwickshire to multiple championships to round off his career. (Edited after I realised I had accidentally typed 'not honest' instead of 'honest'.)
The big problem with Bell is that he only scores runs on good pitches, with England already doing well. When was the last time he rescued England, like Cook (occasionally), Root, etc?
Good to see an early wicket, I think the wicket is improving.
April. But before that, it was the 2013 home Ashes series.
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
Its the Mirror, it is beyond a joke of a comic....
"Vince Cable’s well-regarded strategies have been slung in the shredder and “For Sale” signs slung around the Royal Mail."
For instance....This would be the same Vince Cable who has already part-privatized the Royal Mail and other than that can anybody name anything that Cable did in his 5 years?
Tuition fees. Not the worst of decisions in practice, but so ineptly presented that they are rapidly strangling Higher Education, and of course destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
To be fair to Vince on that, I don't think that was any of his doing, that was mostly definitely forced upon him.
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
Its the Mirror, it is beyond a joke of a comic....
"Vince Cable’s well-regarded strategies have been slung in the shredder and “For Sale” signs slung around the Royal Mail."
For instance....This would be the same Vince Cable who has already part-privatized the Royal Mail and other than that can anybody name anything that Cable did in his 5 years?
Tuition fees. Not the worst of decisions in practice, but so ineptly presented that they are rapidly strangling Higher Education, and of course destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
To be fair to Vince on that, I don't think that was any of his doing, that was mostly definitely forced upon him.
True - but he didn't have to revel in it or take ownership of the process in the way he did.
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Of course the judgment and appeals process can take months or even years.
That's what we should be working on.
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
Indeed. And if we get people processed and, if necessary, deported within a two month period, then it's legitimate to keep them in a secure facility for that short time. After all, it's something they've been willing to come to, so I don't think they can have any complaints.
I also think there needs to be more of a focus on returning genuine asylum seekers to parts of their own country where they are safer. For example, those fleeing the Somalia situation could be returned to Somaliland. The fact that the vast bulk of asylum seekers are adult men shows the system is somewhat broken and isn't focused on those with the most needs.
I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
=============== Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:
"Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"
He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
6. Send all asylum claimants arriving from Calais back to France as is expected by the treaties we both signed.
My other post addressed this.
If the asylum claimants don't *register* in France, France has no obligation to take them back.
Sangatte is set up to register the claimants. But French take a long time and make it very difficult. And the site is located very conveniently for the claimants to debunk to the UK.
Few would regard Sangatte as anything more than a hostelry for immigrants biding their time before the next illegal attempt into the UK. – The French have no desire to clear up their mess, until they do, it will be the same political football as it has been for the past 30 years.
I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
=============== Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:
"Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"
He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
They'd escape through porous means once across the water. They'd be hiding and sneaking off through any means possible - and if at first they didn't succeed once back in France they'd try again next week because why not.
Meanwhile the government takes in excess of three to six months to grant a visa to someone absolutely entitled to one. Not only that while helping people in Calais, they offer no help what so ever even to British Citizens in foreign countries trying to obtain visas for relatives. I went with a friend to the British Embassy last week and he didn't even get through the door to ask his question, he was handed a piece of paper with a website address on it, and a phone number he could call to talk to a call centre (for 137p/min + call charges). Don't even get me started about the disgrace that is the current Financial Support rules which force British citizens to leave their children (by marriage) in foreign countries because they don't earn enough, and yet we admit vagrants from new EU countries without asking a single question.
I never said that the situation with the UK is perfect. I'm just saying that if we don't co-operate with France the problem in France will become our problem.
It already is our problem, the economy in East Kent is being crippled
And would be crippled ten times more if the camps were on our side of the border or the Chunnel was closed altogether as some of the bizarre suggestions we've seen so far.
There hasn't been a single plausible alternative to co-operating with the French posted here yet.
Co-operation is a two way street. Since the French are doing almost nothing to combat the problem from their side I wonder how much more co-operation you expect us to concede.
I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
=============== Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:
"Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"
He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
I guess his only way out would be to claim victory and accept a senior role, perhaps at the shad DWP. But even that seems unlikely.
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Of course the judgment and appeals process can take months or even years.
That's what we should be working on.
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
Why do we even bother with this process if we to all intents don't ever remove anyone when their various lengthly appeals have failed. On the year mentioned in the DM article quoted below we removed around 3% of the people who had failed their asylum application and appeals. I saw a figure the other day that suggested around half the Somali immigrant population were failed asylum seekers.
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
6. Send all asylum claimants arriving from Calais back to France as is expected by the treaties we both signed.
My other post addressed this.
If the asylum claimants don't *register* in France, France has no obligation to take them back.
Sangatte is set up to register the claimants. But French take a long time and make it very difficult. And the site is located very conveniently for the claimants to debunk to the UK.
Few would regard Sangatte as anything more than a hostelry for immigrants biding their time before the next illegal attempt into the UK. – The French have no desire to clear up their mess, until they do, it will be the same political football as it has been for the past 30 years.
I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
=============== Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Someone on the Mumsnet Q&A asked Jeremy if he'd "do the decent thing" (their words not mine) and stand down. This is what he said in response:
"Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"
He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
In all fairness to Corbyn, that is a very sensible question. However bad his ideas, it would be letting down those people who believe in them if he doesn't go forward to the last stage - and for the sake of the Labour party, I can only hope that the polls are as correct as they were in May and he is soundly and fairly beaten.
I do wonder if we should close the Tunnel for a week, or a month.
Eh? And who pays the compensation?
The solution is simple if the will is there, a joint effort between us and the French to secure the port and tunnel is very straightforward but nothing will happen when both sides are blaming the other. Dover is gridlocked, the local economy is dying. Cameron does nothing.
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Of course the judgment and appeals process can take months or even years.
That's what we should be working on.
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
Why do we even bother with this process if we to all intents don't ever remove anyone when their various lengthly appeals have failed. On the year mentioned in the DM article quoted below we removed around 3% of the people who had failed their asylum application and appeals. I saw a figure the other day that suggested around half the Somali immigrant population were failed asylum seekers.
We intend to, we just struggle to.
The Blair government lost track of who was doing what where and since then the cart has not been righted.
I don't know if the 3% is entirely right.
Nearly 7,000 failed asylum seekers left or were deported last year, and I doubt that is out of 200,000 applications.
Whatever happens this has been an incredible story and sadly one that totally missed me by until quite late on.
Don't be too hard on yourself Henry, the betting recommendations on both Burnham and Cooper could even now still be used to produce a healthy profit if Corbyn wins at no risk should one of them come in
The problem is in France, and of France. Close the tunnel, and let the thousands of migrants trying to get in here enjoy their life in France. A temporary closure would help concentrate minds.
I think "virtue signalling" is a very snappy term and encapsulates exactly what it's about.
It's much easier feeling good by pointing out that some people are suffering rather than actually doing something. There are people sleeping rough every night. Have you joined the Salvation Army so that you can spend your evening delivering meals and giving them a kind word?
If you have, I apologise.
If not, do you get your satisfaction demanding that "somebody should do something"? Do you even think that the Salvation Army are people to be admired?
Plenty of people are applying elastoplast to rough sleepers without dressing up in weird clothes.
At least they got of their arses and did something, rather than sitting on forums and social media and pontificating about doing good, then telling all their right on friends at dinner parties that they "made a difference".
So it's more important to you that people get off their *rses than it is that they fix something.
It's almost as if rightwingers see getting up of your *rse as... a virtue, and demand that others signal it.
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
Depicting a man of Muslim heritage as an agent of Satan is pretty disgusting new low for the Mirror. They're really trying to tap into ancient prejudices here:
So Ladbrokes join Stan James in now making Jeremy Corbyn the new favourite to win. Corbyn 6/4, Burnham 13/8 Cooper 9/4 and Kendall 33/1. Bet365 have them as joint favourites at 13/8 the pair though you can still get 7/4 on Corbyn with Corals, Boylesports and of course Betfair. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader Whatever happens this has been an incredible story and sadly one that totally missed me by until quite late on.
Everyone who takes the mickey out of American politics and their candidates can now I hope shut up. We have them beat hands down - well Labour do.
I do wonder if we should close the Tunnel for a week, or a month.
Eh? And who pays the compensation?
That's Eurotunnel's problem.
It is, after all, a business generating profits for their investors, not a publicly owned and run asset.
If they as a commercial organisation are unable to secure their site, and process revenue generating travellers in an adequate and secure fashion, they should no longer be allowed to operate.
I do wonder if we should close the Tunnel for a week, or a month.
Eh? And who pays the compensation?
That's Eurotunnel's problem. If they as a commercial operation are unable to secure their site, and process revenue generating travellers in an adequate fashion, they should no longer be allowed to operate.
Saw a docu on C5 the other day - a lady and her small daughter came to Britain, *lost her passport* and for NINE years was put up in a smart B&B hotel room with benefits for subsistence.
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
Of course the judgment and appeals process can take months or even years.
That's what we should be working on.
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
Why do we even bother with this process if we to all intents don't ever remove anyone when their various lengthly appeals have failed. On the year mentioned in the DM article quoted below we removed around 3% of the people who had failed their asylum application and appeals. I saw a figure the other day that suggested around half the Somali immigrant population were failed asylum seekers.
We intend to, we just struggle to.
The Blair government lost track of who was doing what where and since then the cart has not been righted.
I don't know if the 3% is entirely right.
Nearly 7,000 failed asylum seekers left or were deported last year, and I doubt that is out of 200,000 applications.
In the year in the DM article there were 116,000 applicants, 90% of those failed which would be 104,000, we removed 3,565 or 3.4%
The problem is in France, and of France. Close the tunnel, and let the thousands of migrants trying to get in here enjoy their life in France. A temporary closure would help concentrate minds.
Yep, and watch Eurotunnel and other businesses sue the govt for fortunes. Imagine Heathrow being shut for a week because a stowaway had been discovered.
The solution is simple, secure the port and tunnel in a joint effort.
Comments
Corbyn will pay for any losses suffered by England though
I've been reading the thread and noticed the discussion on how many seats Labour would win if they managed to capture every LibDem and Green vote in every constituency. (Purely an intellectual exercise since it is never going to happen)
I went back to my Excel Election Results database and crunched the figures for 5 minutes.
For the record, the answer is that Labour would win 60 seats.
From Conservative 45 (41 England, 4 Wales)
From Greens 1 (1 England - Brighton Pavillion) - all of them due to the proposition above
From LibDems 8 (6 England, 1, Scotland, 1 Wales) - all of them due to the proposition above
From Plaid Cymru 2 (2 in Wales, obviously)
From SNP 4 (4 in scotland)
http://communistjokes.tumblr.com/
You've got to admire the courage of the Russians to tell them. I particularly enjoy the ones about the KGB, for example:
'A flock of sheep were stopped by frontier guards at the Russo-Finnish border. “Why do you wish to leave Russia?” the guards asked them. “It’s the NKVD”, replied the terrified sheep. “Beria’s ordered them to arrest all elephants.” “But you aren’t elephants!” the guards pointed out. “Try telling that to the NKVD!”'
The Chunnel can't be rerouted obviously.
My issue with the current England team and has been for quite a while, we have so little variation in the bowling department. 3 right arm medium fast bowlers and two part-time and inconsistent right arm off-spinners.
If the pitch is decent and not very fast (which most wickets these days are), we don't really have much to force a wicket.
And Finn is back (head in hands)...he will never be the bowler he was before somebody f##ked up his action. He can't bowl those 90+ mph balls with the good accuracy coming from a great height that he started his career. Even his "remodeled" action looks a disaster.
What a way to start the day...
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
Rashid still not getting a game - crazy.
Australia 1.86 / 1.87
Draw 3.85 / 3.9
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event?id=27458858
And Stokes is yes another right arm fast-medium...they all bowl at that nice pace for a batsman when they are in.
Flintoff made an interesting point last night on the radio saying that some bowlers pace / action is just lovely when you get in. He gave the example of Brett Lee, he said once you get your eye in it never feels like 90+ as his action was so smooth you just see the ball all the way, say in comparison to Mitchell Johnson.
England's seam attack is basically the same, just that nice pace for a top quality batsman.
I decided to swallow my pride at having sold out my 30/1 and back instead at 9/4 although as OGH points out, laying Burnham could have been a stronger option.
Sending 2Para to occupy Calais is not realistic.
All we can do, effectively, is one or more of the following:
(1) Close the tunnel, permanently or temporarily
(2) Strengthen the fences
(3) Send more border control people to Calais, within the constraints of our agreements with France
(4) Work politically to get France to address the issue properly
(5) Let them all in
The government is trying a combination of 2, 3 and 4. Which seems like a logical approach to me. What's your alternative?
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/904003.html
I think he's overcomplicating it. Mine would be three:
1) Bat better;
2) Bowl better;
3) Field better.
In anycase the problem is highlighted in the first article
It does require this to be the most polarised 2-party election since who knows when. Back in our reality based Universe, I expect a Corbyn-led Labour Party would result in the widest spread of votes ever for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties.
Asylum support from the Home Office ends 21 days after an application for asylum has been refused. If an appeal is made on time the Home Office will continue support until a final decision is made. Home Office support will end 10 days after a decision is made or 21 days after the final appeal decision. If the asylum seeker has dependent children under the age of 18, asylum support should continue until the child reaches 18 or the asylum seeker leaves the country.
Refused asylum seekers and their dependants may be able to receive support under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, see www.gov.uk/asylum-support/how-to-claim. Section 4 support consists of accommodation and pre-paid Azure card, currently worth £35.39 per week for food and essential toiletries, and is provided by the Home Office to asylum seekers who have exhausted all their appeal rights and are destitute."
http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/3-women-from-abroad/maternity-rights-and-benefits-refused-failed-asylum-seekers/
1) Opening Batsman...Lyth isn't good enough.
2) Some sort of variation in the bowling. Maybe Rashid can provide it, maybe we need to see if we can find a left arm..It is a shame that it looks like Tymal Mills is finished in cricket, as he could have been the fastest bowler in the world and is left armer.
3) Another middle order batter that is a head down bore you to death type. When things aren't going well we have basically Cook and Root who can do that, but too many that you can never see batting for 6hrs without worrying about scoring a run.
There isn't an obvious answer to this one.
I can't make out a significant immigrant/asylum-related spike.
http://www.cityam.com/1410951149/how-high-is-unemployment-in-your-area
During that time she wasn't allowed to work either. The whole system needs a massive Press The Reset Button.
#wishful thinking
If the asylum claimants don't *register* in France, France has no obligation to take them back.
Sangatte is set up to register the claimants. But French take a long time and make it very difficult. And the site is located very conveniently for the claimants to debunk to the UK.
There hasn't been a single plausible alternative to co-operating with the French posted here yet.
All the many thousands of nice middle class UK tourists caught up to the chaos are another slow burning headache for them in any EU referendum.
Disagree with #2. Mills when fit was substantially over 90 before they even really worked with him to increase strength, fitness, action...and the pros who faced in the nets say he was the fastest bowler they faced. Footitt has worked hard to increase his pace and now hits 90. Going back to what Flintoff said, Mills action appears to make the pros feel his pace. But his degenerative back condition means that Mills wont play the long form of cricket now.
Taylor I am never certain about, but I think Bell form, age, mental state means really we should have bitten the bullet.
But England approach is definitely safety first, no Rashid, no Footitt, instead going back to Finn.
No lorry parks on the M20/M2, no extra staff sent to Calais, no will to resolve the issue whatsoever
It would resolve tensions (and expenditure) where asylum seekers are housed, it would reduce the wait for genuine claimants and give applicants far less time to make roots (after all if you're here for 9 years, why shouldn't you marry or have kids here) or abscond.
Whilst some of the delay is to ensure a proper process, it can surely be dramatically reduced.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vampire-sajid-javid-comes-working-6155319
This dates from 2002, so obviously thinks may have changed (don't know) but certainly seems to highlight the issues well
http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/generalspeeches/791/westminster-hall-adjournment-debate-asylum-seekers-entering-united-kingdom-via-france
In principle, the easiest group to return rapidly whence they came are those who have crossed the channel from another safe country. The Geneva convention, under which we operate and by which we are bound, specifies that asylum seekers should seek sanctuary in the first safe country that they come to; they do not have the right to shop around for the country offering the most favourable conditions. Consequently, if they pass through one safe country to another, the end recipient has the right to return them under the Geneva convention, yet people pour in from France in significant numbers and are not returned.
From 1995 to 1997, many asylum seekers were returned to France under a bilateral agreement that was negotiated by the Conservative Government but allowed to lapse in autumn 1979. ...
The bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and France specified that we had not only the right to return unacceptable asylum seekers to France within 24 hours but the obligation to do so or, if there were practical obstacles to overcome, to state within 24 hours that that was our intention. The agreement reflected the cordial relations that prevailed then between the United Kingdom and France. It was reciprocal and allowed movement both ways on equal terms although, in practice, the flow was largely one way. We were able to return large numbers of asylum seekers who had entered the country from France.
... It worked well: both sides had the right to terminate it with two months‘ notice but neither did so, because they were satisfied with it and accepted that it was a logical, sensible arrangement. ... [it has been] ... superseded by the Dublin convention, which came into effect in September 1997. The asylum seeker aspects were allowed to lapse at that point and have not been renewed.
The Dublin convention was intended to make general what the bilateral agreement had achieved for Britain and France; namely, the return of asylum seekers to the first safe country that they reached in the European Union. In practice, the convention failed to achieve that. Instead, it makes the return of asylum seekers more difficult and complex than was previously the case. ...
It was certainly inexcusable that, once the problems emerged, the Government did not renegotiate the bilateral agreement with France, within the terms of the Dublin convention, to restore speedy "refoulement", as the conventions call the return of asylum seekers to previous safe countries. ... Germany and Denmark have agreed a similar bilateral agreement to the one that we had with France, and it works well.
I've always defended Bell and I love watching him bat, but Taylor is surely the better option now. Let Bell go and captain Warwickshire to multiple championships to round off his career.
(Edited after I realised I had accidentally typed 'not honest' instead of 'honest'.)
"Vince Cable’s well-regarded strategies have been slung in the shredder and “For Sale” signs slung around the Royal Mail."
For instance....This would be the same Vince Cable who has already part-privatized the Royal Mail and other than that can anybody name anything that Cable did in his 5 years?
Good to see an early wicket, I think the wicket is improving.
Disneyland Paris charges British visitors 40% more http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4511152.ece
I also think there needs to be more of a focus on returning genuine asylum seekers to parts of their own country where they are safer. For example, those fleeing the Somalia situation could be returned to Somaliland. The fact that the vast bulk of asylum seekers are adult men shows the system is somewhat broken and isn't focused on those with the most needs.
"Thanks. Can I pose a question back to you. What would be decent about removing myself from a process in which many people have put in a huge amount of time and energy to develop a good, decent alternative political strategy for our party?"
He's not going to withdraw. Besides, if he were going to he'd only have a week at most in which to do it, since ballot papers will be printed soon.
Few would regard Sangatte as anything more than a hostelry for immigrants biding their time before the next illegal attempt into the UK. – The French have no desire to clear up their mess, until they do, it will be the same political football as it has been for the past 30 years.
Bet365 have them as joint favourites at 13/8 the pair though you can still get 7/4 on Corbyn with Corals, Boylesports and of course Betfair.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
Whatever happens this has been an incredible story and sadly one that totally missed me by until quite late on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11348493/Calais-opens-first-migrant-camp-since-Sangatte-closed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1548603/French-go-ahead-with-Sangatte-2.html
The solution is simple if the will is there, a joint effort between us and the French to secure the port and tunnel is very straightforward but nothing will happen when both sides are blaming the other. Dover is gridlocked, the local economy is dying. Cameron does nothing.
Operation Stack was first introduced in 1996
The Blair government lost track of who was doing what where and since then the cart has not been righted.
I don't know if the 3% is entirely right.
Nearly 7,000 failed asylum seekers left or were deported last year, and I doubt that is out of 200,000 applications.
The problem is in France, and of France. Close the tunnel, and let the thousands of migrants trying to get in here enjoy their life in France. A temporary closure would help concentrate minds.
Thanks, I am well aware of that.
It is, after all, a business generating profits for their investors, not a publicly owned and run asset.
If they as a commercial organisation are unable to secure their site, and process revenue generating travellers in an adequate and secure fashion, they should no longer be allowed to operate.
The solution is simple, secure the port and tunnel in a joint effort.
https://twitter.com/stephentall/status/626329206604087297