I liked the UKIP manifesto. It was slick and well presented (the best of the party manifestos), and I liked that each section was prefaced with a picture and quote from a different senior figure in UKIP.
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
I think this idea has a lot of merit.
Asylum seekers mostly hope to return to their home communities once the crisis is over (IF it is ever over). Keeping them together rather than making a European diaspora out of them would enable the refugees to work in an expat community (hopefully temporary) where they would have no pressure to conform to a host community.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
It's a good idea to develop quickly. At least it's something.
Crikey. This might explain why the Chilcot report has taken so long:
In a statement last week, Chilcot made pointed reference to the government’s obligation to provide “all relevant documents” to the inquiry. But he described how the Maxwellisation process had “led to … the identification of government documents which had not been submitted to the inquiry and which have in some cases opened up new issues”.
I recommend every pb-er looks at the horrific images I just linked, of Syrian kids, drowned off the Libyan shore, trying to reach Europe. Here they are again. Be warned. You won't unsee them. http://tinyurl.com/o923gwr Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I agree with you. This is a massive crisis and wringing hands complaining about words like 'swarm' will not stop it. Its not doing these migrants any favours by pretending otherwise. The pain of these people lies in their homelands and it is in their homelands where the solution needs to be for want of a better word - enforced. We might think that the UN would be the medium for this enforcement.
Am I the only person on here who will admit to laying Corbyn heavily?
What price ?
What's your thinking on that ? Are you laying him still or was this previously ? Are you going to let it run or try and reback higher or stop loss lower ?
Haha- Pulps- your'e a rat up a drainpipe on that post comrade. Nothing like the sniff of lost readies to draw you out.
FWIW- I've phoned a few Labour friends in the last few days, and like me, none have voted Corbyn- all pretty much have gone for Burnham but all expect Corbyn to win. Think of that of what you will- we are all metropolitan, middle aged lefties.
I though am still well green on a Corbyn victory- and all my betting eggs remain there.
Crikey. This might explain why the Chilcot report has taken so long:
In a statement last week, Chilcot made pointed reference to the government’s obligation to provide “all relevant documents” to the inquiry. But he described how the Maxwellisation process had “led to … the identification of government documents which had not been submitted to the inquiry and which have in some cases opened up new issues”.
It must be the Daily Express. Must be. Also there was a column in the Yorkshire Post about Bangladeshi waiters.
A party that has been called a one trick pony obsessed w immigration has just got 13% in a GE despite the media doing them down at every opportunity
Don't forget, that's actually an enormous failure because it falls short of the wildest hopes and dreams beforehand, nevermind a year before the GE they'd have been very happy with that result.
Of Course!
Its been all downhill since Farage took over at UKIP.. Euro win, By election wins, defections, record GE vote..
Why not get rid of him and replace with a woman who lost her seat on Merton council?! A few people on here have heard of her, she's not Farage, that's good enough
During the election campaign, I praised the UKIP manifesto, saying it was more professional and coherent than their joke 2010 one. I said that unbidden, and I am far from being a friend or follower of the party. Suzanne Evans was responsible for that coherent and professional manifesto (which it was, even if I did disagree with much of its content).
She's also the party's deputy chair.
And your point about her lack of electoral success also applies to Farage: he is only an MEP due to the crass closed-list PR system, and he's failed to get into parliament an incredible seven times. At least she gained a seat on a council - which is more than Farage has done - even if it was for another party.
I understand you don't rate her, but you should. If she can raise praise from me, who is hardly a UKIP fan, then you should perhaps consider taking her seriously.
I quite like her. We canvassed Jaywick together at the by Election, so spent 3-4 hrs together and she is really nice, I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future..
13% at the GE was an incredible achievement for UKIP. Because they have been around that level in the polls for 3-4 years now people dismiss it/play it down, but ask AntiFrank, tim, Neil and others what chance they thought UKIP had of scoring double figures at the GE back in 2013... I laid them all 4/6 (60%) UKIP would get less than 10% and they bit my hand off. Like him or not, most of it was down to Farage, and currently there is no one in the party capable of replacing him
Crikey. This might explain why the Chilcot report has taken so long:
In a statement last week, Chilcot made pointed reference to the government’s obligation to provide “all relevant documents” to the inquiry. But he described how the Maxwellisation process had “led to … the identification of government documents which had not been submitted to the inquiry and which have in some cases opened up new issues”.
They said that a few days ago. But they stopped taking evidence in February 2011. The idea that it is the Maxwellisation process that has stopped these bumbling incompetents from releasing the report is ridiculous.
The reason is that they're bumbling incompetents, albeit well-paid ones.
I agree the damage to the country they leave behind is a potential moral objection. But I suspect someone who is anti-immigration will not consider that as an objection!
With immigration we get hundreds of thousands of skilled people a year who have been educated in their own country at their own expense or their tax-payers expense. We save all that money on education and avoid a 15-20 year lead time. They are productive from day one and add something like 0.5% pa to our GDP from their production and income.
Osborne avoided his triple dip because of the extra 0.5% contribution of immigrants to GDP. We are an ageing population. We need to import many more skilled people to do the work. It might be immoral stripping other countries of their productive assets but it is definitely in our interests.
Germany and Ireland understand this and use immigration to manage their economies.
But we have a problem with the misconceptions and baseless fears in this country. Politicians and the media have a duty to deal with them.
Solving an ageing population with mass immigration is basically a ponzi scheme. The economic benefits are logically sound but unsustainable. Requiring imported skills is a symptom of the failures of our education system and is regrettable, potentially adding to the costs of our public services.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
Well done Sean for posting a link to show the human cost of the migrant crisis.
I don't know what else to say, other than the world is sometimes a pretty shitty place.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
I think the objection to immigration is a mixture of things:
1. They are taking our jobs. 2. They are changing our culture. 3. There isn't room for them. Pressure on hospitals, roads, houses etc. 4. They may include terrorists and criminals. 5. They are a different colour - i.e. racism. OK if they are Australian or Canadian.
Different people will have a different set of these objections. Not many hold objection 5 I hope. WWC males would major on objections 1 and 3 (and perhaps 5). Many conservatives would major on objections 2,3 and 4.
It would be useful if there was some research on the basis of people's concern regarding immigration.
..................................
To put it in percpective, Britain took in about 25,000 Asian Ugandans in 1972. In the period up to 2001, Britain took in 720,000 Irish (including my wife). 1.2% 0f the UK population was born in Ireland.
Very comprehensive analysis, I agree with it all. Another potential objection is the long-term damage to the country they leave behind. For example a brain-drain of youth workers and a countries citizens abandoning it in a civil war damaging any chance of long term stability.
I agree the damage to the country they leave behind is a potential moral objection. But I suspect someone who is anti-immigration will not consider that as an objection!
With immigration we get hundreds of thousands of skilled people a year who have been educated in their own country at their own expense or their tax-payers expense. We save all that money on education and avoid a 15-20 year lead time. They are productive from day one and add something like 0.5% pa to our GDP from their production and income.
Osborne avoided his triple dip because of the extra 0.5% contribution of immigrants to GDP. We are an ageing population. We need to import many more skilled people to do the work. It might be immoral stripping other countries of their productive assets but it is definitely in our interests.
Germany and Ireland understand this and use immigration to manage their economies.
But we have a problem with the misconceptions and baseless fears in this country. Politicians and the media have a duty to deal with them.
Your arguments in favour of large-scale immigration are mainly economic. But there are lots of other reasons why people are opposed to large-scale immigration which have nothing to do with economic considerations.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
RC yes it is.. what are we going to do about it.. as a nation..Qualifying asylum seekers should be taken on board..what do we do with the ones who don't tell us where they come from..so that we can return them..I suppose the simple solution is to just shoot them..
In order for that plan to work you'd need to shoot all of the lefty lawyers first. Actually if you do that first then everyone will cheer up and probably won't care about the illegal immigrants.
During the election campaign, I praised the UKIP manifesto, saying it was more professional and coherent than their joke 2010 one. I said that unbidden, and I am far from being a friend or follower of the party. Suzanne Evans was responsible for that coherent and professional manifesto (which it was, even if I did disagree with much of its content).
She's also the party's deputy chair.
And your point about her lack of electoral success also applies to Farage: he is only an MEP due to the crass closed-list PR system, and he's failed to get into parliament an incredible seven times. At least she gained a seat on a council - which is more than Farage has done - even if it was for another party.
I understand you don't rate her, but you should. If she can raise praise from me, who is hardly a UKIP fan, then you should perhaps consider taking her seriously.
I quite like her. We canvassed Jaywick together at the by Election, so spent 3-4 hrs together and she is really nice, I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future..
13% at the GE was an incredible achievement for UKIP. Because they have been around that level in the polls for 3-4 years now people dismiss it/play it down, but ask AntiFrank, tim, Neil and others what chance they thought UKIP had of scoring double figures at the GE back in 2013... I laid them all 4/6 (60%) UKIP would get less than 10% and they bit my hand off. Like him or not, most of it was down to Farage, and currently there is no one in the party capable of replacing him
"I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future."
There is the past, and then there is the future. Farage may well be a busted flush - his repeated inability to get elected to parliament and his pathetic (un)resignation are hardly signs of a stellar politician. He's also very damaged goods.
Perhaps he has taken UKIP as far as he can go. Perhaps he has persuaded everyone he is able to persuade, and it is time for someone else to take on the mantle and improve the party's support. Evans has shown herself as reasonably competent on TV and radio, and she produced that manifesto. She is fresh.
It might be time for Farage to step back a little and become UKIP's heart, whilst Evans becomes its head.
If not, UKIP further embraces the concept that it is little more than the 'Farage Party'.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I hadn't realised that your reading skills were that poor.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I haven't looked but I'm sure they're heart rending but in truth probably no worse than images of what humanity did to humanity in WW2 or what ISIS is doing now and what has been done in countless other conflicts. But like the application of the law, these problems must be tackled rationally and unemotionally, to do otherwise prejudices judgment and whatever chance there is of a solution. If there is a solution to this problem it will not be found by being drawn in on emotion alone. Also I don't think you can just dismiss the concerns of those that don't think like you do because they don't think like you do.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
I quite like her. We canvassed Jaywick together at the by Election, so spent 3-4 hrs together and she is really nice, I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future..
13% at the GE was an incredible achievement for UKIP. Because they have been around that level in the polls for 3-4 years now people dismiss it/play it down, but ask AntiFrank, tim, Neil and others what chance they thought UKIP had of scoring double figures at the GE back in 2013... I laid them all 4/6 (60%) UKIP would get less than 10% and they bit my hand off. Like him or not, most of it was down to Farage, and currently there is no one in the party capable of replacing him
Farage is like marmite. And without him, UKIP would not have risen to 13% in the polls.
But the question is whether he is the guy who can take UKIP to 18-19%, when they start getting reasonable numbers of seats.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
Because it is news that British taxpayers' money is being used by foreign citizens who are then avoiding paying it back. You don't need to hate the Nigerian mother in question to be concerned about the flaw in the system.
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
Asylum seekers mostly hope to return to their home communities once the crisis is over (IF it is ever over). Keeping them together rather than making a European diaspora out of them would enable the refugees to work in an expat community (hopefully temporary) where they would have no pressure to conform to a host community.
This is a very good idea and there are already suitable places available without having to "lease" new areas.
Spain has two areas of sovereign territory in North Aftrica which would be ideal - Ceuta and Melilla.
'Wages cut - solution is higher minimum wage and crackdown on dodgy employers.'
A higher minimum wage will have zero impact on skilled workers that are above that level but have seen their incomes fall.
'Massive strains on the NHS,housing & schools - immigrants are shoring up the NHS. Housing needs to sorted anyway but there is shortage of skilled labour. Immigrants can provide that'
The housing shortage is due to demand massively outstripping supply year after year, due to mass uncontrolled immigration.
'overcrowding in London - I agree it can be unpleasant trying to get around central London. But it is mainly tourists. Would you ban them to allievate the overcrowding? '
Nonsense, I have lived in London for the past 30 years,tourism didn't start 15 years ago ! Since when did the overcrowded South East region become a massive magnet for tourists?.
Have a look at the South East Region, say Sussex or Kent on Google maps satellite. Plenty of space. Not like central London.
I was born in Tottenham and have lived in London all my life. Your comment is trite
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
Does this have echoes of the Jews and Palestine to anyone else?
I quite like her. We canvassed Jaywick together at the by Election, so spent 3-4 hrs together and she is really nice, I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future..
13% at the GE was an incredible achievement for UKIP. Because they have been around that level in the polls for 3-4 years now people dismiss it/play it down, but ask AntiFrank, tim, Neil and others what chance they thought UKIP had of scoring double figures at the GE back in 2013... I laid them all 4/6 (60%) UKIP would get less than 10% and they bit my hand off. Like him or not, most of it was down to Farage, and currently there is no one in the party capable of replacing him
Farage is like marmite. And without him, UKIP would not have risen to 13% in the polls.
But the question is whether he is the guy who can take UKIP to 18-19%, when they start getting reasonable numbers of seats.
I don't know if he is.
Paul Nuttall is charismatic so would make a reasonable replacement.
During the election campaign, I praised the UKIP manifesto, saying it was more professional and coherent than their joke 2010 one. I said that unbidden, and I am far from being a friend or follower of the party. Suzanne Evans was responsible for that coherent and professional manifesto (which it was, even if I did disagree with much of its content).
I understand you don't rate her, but you should. If she can raise praise from me, who is hardly a UKIP fan, then you should perhaps consider taking her seriously.
"I just think it is crazy to think that she would have done a better job than Farage over the past 5 years or could do in the future."
There is the past, and then there is the future. Farage may well be a busted flush - his repeated inability to get elected to parliament and his pathetic (un)resignation are hardly signs of a stellar politician. He's also very damaged goods.
Perhaps he has taken UKIP as far as he can go. Perhaps he has persuaded everyone he is able to persuade, and it is time for someone else to take on the mantle and improve the party's support. Evans has shown herself as reasonably competent on TV and radio, and she produced that manifesto. She is fresh.
It might be time for Farage to step back a little and become UKIP's heart, whilst Evans becomes its head.
If not, UKIP further embraces the concept that it is little more than the 'Farage Party'.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree. Maybe it is "The Farage Party?'.. it has never achieved any success without him... so be it, we are lucky to have him. Maybe this is peak kipper
This happens time and time again in football. A smallish club achieves a consistent level of success with a dominant manager at the helm.. then one day they say he has "taken the club as far as he can" and replace him with a coach with new, fresh ideas.. the club go into freefall as the people in charge had got used to overachieving and took maintaining that level of success as par for the course
So I guess you are thinking "UKIP need to reach out to people like yourself etc etc", by outing Farage. I think what would happen is people like yourself would like UKIP more than you do now, and still vote for whoever you vote for, while people that vote UKIP now may cease to do so in the future
Design a Rand Paul bumpersticker and get your bumperstickers stored in the official campaign store, 6 free bumperstickers showcasing the design and and a bumpersticker signed by Rand Paul himself! https://www.randpaul.com/bumpersticker
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
As Cameron says, we need to break the link between turning up in Europe and getting to stay. That is just encouraging more and more people to make the perilous trip by sea, and ending up with more men, women and children drowning or dying in lorries. I think the best approach is paying Tunisia, or Turkey, or somewhere else to be a processing centre. If you turn up in Europe you get taken there, so there's no point in making the sea journey. This is similar to what Australia did, and it undoubtedly saved lives.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
I had thought the point of the piece was not that concern about immigration is new or an invention of the media, but that the concern about it has however spiked recently, despite numbers not being that much higher than, say, last year (although still a record) because there has been extra media attention, particularly in relation to events at Calais, which has been much more prominent that incidents in previous years, which seemed like one offs.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
Does this have echoes of the Jews and Palestine to anyone else?
I can't see any comparison at all myself. Why do you say this?
Am I the only person on here who will admit to laying Corbyn heavily?
What price ?
What's your thinking on that ? Are you laying him still or was this previously ? Are you going to let it run or try and reback higher or stop loss lower ?
At much higher odds than now. I find it hard to believe they are that stupid as to elect him leader and intend to lay much more to bring the average to a better price when the hysteria starts to subside. I read on here that backing NOM was free money when I was laying it. I don't have a great deal of confidence in my views on this one but I think the value is once again in opposing the collective wisdom of the forum.
This is a lottery now. Do you want to buy another ticket?
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I haven't looked but I'm sure they're heart rending but in truth probably no worse than images of what humanity did to humanity in WW2 or what ISIS is doing now and what has been done in countless other conflicts. But like the application of the law, these problems must be tackled rationally and unemotionally, to do otherwise prejudices judgment and whatever chance there is of a solution. If there is a solution to this problem it will not be found by being drawn in on emotion alone. Also I don't think you can just dismiss the concerns of those that don't think like you do because they don't think like you do.
Of course you can dismiss the views of those that don't like you and don't think like you... we dismiss the views of radical Islam and Isis. And good. If they liked us and thought like us I would be worried.
And, there is nothing better than showing the actual footage of what is going on, to pull on those emotions and to show that we are human. Why did we force the Germans post WW2 to watch the video atrocities of what they had perpetrated on other humans?
I would love Cameron to look at these pictures, and to meet and speak with the migrants who are risking their lives, their children lives to escape war and poverty and then to use the word swarm to describe them. A bit of emotion wouldn't go amiss in Cameron's sake and would certainly improve his overall policymaking which as far I can gather is to stick his head in the sand.
'Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......'
But the so called 'sensible'news outlets tell us daily how strained resources are in the NHS,but hey ho any abuse is not to be reported.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
As Cameron says, we need to break the link between turning up in Europe and getting to stay. That is just encouraging more and more people to make the perilous trip by sea, and ending up with more men, women and children drowning or dying in lorries. I think the best approach is paying Tunisia, or Turkey, or somewhere else to be a processing centre. If you turn up in Europe you get taken there, so there's no point in making the sea journey. This is similar to what Australia did, and it undoubtedly saved lives.
See my reply earlier that Spain has two suitable sovereign territory enclaves in North Africa which would be ideal for this task - Ceuta and Melilla.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree. Maybe it is "The Farage Party?'.. it has never achieved any success without him... so be it, we are lucky to have him
This happens time and time again in football. A smallish club achieves a consistent level of success with a dominant manager at the helm.. then one day they say he has "taken the club as far as he can" and replace him with a coach with new, fresh ideas.. the club go into freefall as the people in charge had got used to overachieving and took maintaining that level of success as par for the course
So I guess you are thinking "UKIP need to reach out to people like yourself etc etc", by outing Farage. I think what would happen is people like yourself would like UKIP more than you do now, and still vote for whoever you vote for, while people that vote UKIP now may cease to do so in the future
The difference is that politics is not football. In politics, you need to win over more and more people, and each set of people is different to the ones before. There are certainly people like me that are pretty conservative, but have a strong dislike of Farage. I certainly could not vote for UKIP under Farage's leadership. Ignoring how divisive some of his statements are, the party just seems like a fan club, when to get my vote I'd have to take them seriously as a potential coalition partner.
Of course, as long as the Conservatives do a good job then UKIP won't advance regardless who is leader. However, if the Conservatives screw up, some might look around at the other options. UKIP need to be ready as a serious party to scoop up those votes. Thankfully, they do not appear to be doing that.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year. Call it New Hong Kong or New Carthage.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
Would you like to volunteer to foot the £145,000 bill? Please go ahead.
I recommend every pb-er looks at the horrific images I just linked, of Syrian kids, drowned off the Libyan shore, trying to reach Europe. Here they are again. Be warned. You won't unsee them. http://tinyurl.com/o923gwr Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I agree with you. This is a massive crisis and wringing hands complaining about words like 'swarm' will not stop it. Its not doing these migrants any favours by pretending otherwise. The pain of these people lies in their homelands and it is in their homelands where the solution needs to be for want of a better word - enforced. We might think that the UN would be the medium for this enforcement.
We have Syrian refugee camps on the Syrian borders holding thousands of people in which Britain is giving millions in money of aid to support,they like small cities.
I don't think building another refugee camp or safe haven on a part of a sandy part of north Africa will stop the flow.
My solution to this crisis would be for countries like Germany and Sweden to get tough on immigration,these countries are part of the problem with they soft stance on immigration from north Arica/Syria,it's giving a message,you get here,you stay.
Make a deal with North African countries that a EU naval immigration force can return people straight away from they boats back to the N African shores,that includes getting some sort of deal with Libya.
Sorry to sound Harsh but you need to send a message that the EU is getting tough on all immigration,even refugee immigration,any soft stance and it will fail.
Then you will see the numbers drop in the Mediterranean crossings and the deaths of these poor people cut.
'Wages cut - solution is higher minimum wage and crackdown on dodgy employers.'
A higher minimum wage will have zero impact on skilled workers that are above that level but have seen their incomes fall.
'Massive strains on the NHS,housing & schools - immigrants are shoring up the NHS. Housing needs to sorted anyway but there is shortage of skilled labour. Immigrants can provide that'
The housing shortage is due to demand massively outstripping supply year after year, due to mass uncontrolled immigration.
'overcrowding in London - I agree it can be unpleasant trying to get around central London. But it is mainly tourists. Would you ban them to allievate the overcrowding? '
Nonsense, I have lived in London for the past 30 years,tourism didn't start 15 years ago ! Since when did the overcrowded South East region become a massive magnet for tourists?.
Have a look at the South East Region, say Sussex or Kent on Google maps satellite. Plenty of space. Not like central London.
I do not see why we should concrete over the beautiful English countryside so that we can accommodate a million people brought here every three years. I'm perfectly happy with skilled migrants coming over here, but there really is no need to have so many unskilled.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree. Maybe it is "The Farage Party?'.. it has never achieved any success without him... so be it, we are lucky to have him. Maybe this is peak kipper
This happens time and time again in football. A smallish club achieves a consistent level of success with a dominant manager at the helm.. then one day they say he has "taken the club as far as he can" and replace him with a coach with new, fresh ideas.. the club go into freefall as the people in charge had got used to overachieving and took maintaining that level of success as par for the course
So I guess you are thinking "UKIP need to reach out to people like yourself etc etc", by outing Farage. I think what would happen is people like yourself would like UKIP more than you do now, and still vote for whoever you vote for, while people that vote UKIP now may cease to do so in the future
Politics is not football. There are similarities, but also vast differences. You may be stretching that comparison a trifle too far.
UKIP does not need to reach out to me. I am unlikely to vote for it unless they had a stellar candidate in my area (it'll be interesting to see who they put up for the council by-election next month - I've only heard of the Conservative and Lib Dem so far). (*)
As I've said many times passim, I vote for candidates, not parties, although the party does play a part. Hence I voted Conservative at the GE, and Labour at the locals on the same day. I don't have someone I vote for.
I would find it very hard to vote to vote for any UKIP candidate with Farage as leader; I might be more liable to under a different leader without such baggage. I am probably not alone.
But hey! It's not my party.
(*) Edit: I've just checked and the full list of candidates has been released. The UKIP lady is the only one from outside the ward.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
'Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......'
But the so called 'sensible'news outlets tell us daily how strained resources are in the NHS,but hey ho any abuse is not to be reported.
As said, it is not remotely newsworthy, unless there is an agenda of some sort. If the BBC were to report every case of a nobody who de-frauded an organisation out of 100k or so, then we would require a megalithic news service simply re-gurgitating fraudelent news stories.
The Telegraph reported this to further its agenda on economic migrants. Fine-- we know that the Telegraph doesn't think much of them. But why would you want a public broadcaster to follow suit?
Two groups of people on a beach in the Greek Islands. The first get to fly to northern Europe on a Thomson or Thomas Cook flight while the second have to walk. One humanity?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Yes, that was what I was thinking - some kind of UN-administered "safe zone" somewhere in Africa, with each UN member paying a bit towards it.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
This woman came over to stay with her sister during pregnancy. She said she was prepared to pay and would pay (?), but hadn't been asked. If that is NHS policy, we should surely treat everyone the same so why don't we invite the world (or the female half) to come to the UK to have their babies gratis, all found.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
I have no problem with them administering care. The problem is the lack of effort to retrieve the money owed.
Well colour me surprised, the first two posts I see (not including replies to comment) under the article are:
"this thread isn't going to end well."
"I know there'll be more abuse, but it's a decent last try. Everything is poison from Blair's lips though..."
That's practically praise from what I expected to see immediately.
Love this one too
"He's probably right that Labour is doomed if Corbyn becomes leader. But why does that matter? For once, just once, we will be able to vote for an honest politician. I'm happy to pay that price."
I guess the price of the country 'suffering' under the Tories is really not that bad then, which I always feels undermines the passionate hatred that PurityLabour types often espouse.
Hate the Tories? Yes. But not so much that compromise in order to beat them is necessary or desirable. Fair enough I guess, if they've thought it through.
"And it doesn’t seem to be a matter of personal experience. For example, 47% of the Welsh named immigration as the single most important issue facing Britain today but barely one in twenty Welsh residents are not British citizens."
The personal experience is what they see happening elsewhere. They probably don't want it to happen to where they live. Some Londoners find it hard to understand why anyone wouldn't want their home town to be like London. The gap between London and the rest of the country is massive.
"and believe, incorrectly, that Britain is in the frontline of this."
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
Two groups of people on a beach in the Greek Islands. The first get to fly to northern Europe on a Thomson or Thomas Cook flight while the second have to walk. One humanity?
OMG- being stuffed and packaged on a Thomson or Thomas Cook chartered flight- the only reading material on offer is the Daily Mail. Are their worse fates in life? Better to walk.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
Do you think the NHS should pay for the health care of 170 million Nigerians? If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
My goodness, imagine how some (mainly on the left) would complain about a new era of empire building!
The practical issues with your scheme are numerous, but not insurmountable. Any such area would need the basics for life: food, water, shelter and sanitation. These may not be easy or cheap to conjure up out of the desert, although the refugee camps are good examples. It would cost.
Then there are the political issues. As a remote example, what happens (if.when IS get to the borders of this area. Do our troops fight them to protect the refugees, or do they do a Dutch and allow another Srebrenica.
But it is certainly something to be considered. I doubt the government is doing so in any concerted way.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
That is really horrific. Appalling.
It is a mega crisis that needs to be addressed.
What are possible solutions?
1. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and bring them to the EU and distribute them fairly among the nations. I suggest that is politically impossible, at least in the UK.
2. Pick them all up from the sea or the coast and return them to the land they've just left. Big logistics. Could work.
3. Sort out Libya, Syria, etc so they don't want to leave. Good luck with that one.
Any other suggestions? Wringing our hands isn't a solution.
I'm pretty flinty about immigration, but those hideous images have troubled me, deeply. We can't do NOTHING. But what do we do?
All I can think of is leasing some sandy part of north Africa, and creating a safe haven - kind of like my "new European colonies" idea, but less incendiary. We'd have to police it and defend it, and it would cost. But as others have pointed out Hong Kong - which turned into a safe haven for fleeing Chinese - is now hugely successful.
Not perfect, but what is? I can't live with a Europe which lets hundreds of kids drown, day after day.
Does this have echoes of the Jews and Palestine to anyone else?
I can't see any comparison at all myself. Why do you say this?
I couldn't rationalise it myself - it just struck me. I can see the differences but it still nags at me.
Well colour me surprised, the first two posts I see (not including replies to comment) under the article are:
"this thread isn't going to end well."
"I know there'll be more abuse, but it's a decent last try. Everything is poison from Blair's lips though..."
That's practically praise from what I expected to see immediately.
Love this one too
"He's probably right that Labour is doomed if Corbyn becomes leader. But why does that matter? For once, just once, we will be able to vote for an honest politician. I'm happy to pay that price."
I guess the price of the country 'suffering' under the Tories is really not that bad then, which I always feels undermines the passionate hatred that PurityLabour types often espouse.
Hate the Tories? Yes. But not so much that compromise in order to beat them is necessary or desirable. Fair enough I guess, if they've thought it through.
Indeed, a few sensible comments alongside the 'send him to the Hague' stereotypes.
Interesting too how Blair compares Corbyn to Trump and Sanders, Le Pen and Syriza and the SNP as a reflection of the populist wave sweeping much of the west
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
How dare someone writing an analysis (even if one thinks it is flawed) make any sort of assumption about people?! That is such an unusual thing, assuming people think x or y certainly doesn't run through practically every generalised statement about politics ever, from public, pundit and politician, about what the 'people' want, think or need.
In all seriousness, people make assumptions about people and society at large when predicting things. That might be very mistaken, but there's not 'right' to do it or not, it's just what people do as whatever counts as 'evidence' of public opinion will hardly be definitive (out of date, sub samples wrong, question biased, questioner biased, doesn't apply in x because y, etc etc)
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
My goodness, imagine how some (mainly on the left) would complain about a new era of empire building! .
Sometimes I wish we had the resources to indulge in that sort of thing, given how types like Kirchner and others decry any failure of the UK and other nations to do what they want as displaying colonial or neo-colonial attitudes. Sometimes it makes me want to just go 'OK, you want actual colonial actions from us here? Fine!'
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
Would you like to volunteer to foot the £145,000 bill? Please go ahead.
Jeez Tyson I am just sick of your hand wringing on this site.
Tell you what lets just call it the fucking International Health Service, open it to all comers but just make sure it's the Brits hard work that pays for it with ever lengthening queues and dwindling resources.
I say again to you ask and I asked before.when do we stop? How many do we treat and most importantly how many times do we push down the queue the indigenous people that actually pay for it.
Re economic migrants - It's an impossible challenge and task and from my first hand experience the more you try to help the more that will come until it is overwhelming. The only way to help all concerned is to save the problem a source. Once they get into the hands of the people traffickers it's all over either by death or by increased numbers on infrastructure that is already at point of collapse.
Now check if you are "concerned" about immigration. You might feel that we are facing a crisis which needs to be addressed. Alternatively you may have been manipulated by the media, or something.
I haven't looked but I'm sure they're heart rending but in truth probably no worse than images of what humanity did to humanity in WW2 or what ISIS is doing now and what has been done in countless other conflicts. But like the application of the law, these problems must be tackled rationally and unemotionally, to do otherwise prejudices judgment and whatever chance there is of a solution. If there is a solution to this problem it will not be found by being drawn in on emotion alone. Also I don't think you can just dismiss the concerns of those that don't think like you do because they don't think like you do.
Of course you can dismiss the views of those that don't like you and don't think like you... we dismiss the views of radical Islam and Isis. And good. If they liked us and thought like us I would be worried.
And, there is nothing better than showing the actual footage of what is going on, to pull on those emotions and to show that we are human. Why did we force the Germans post WW2 to watch the video atrocities of what they had perpetrated on other humans?
I would love Cameron to look at these pictures, and to meet and speak with the migrants who are risking their lives, their children lives to escape war and poverty and then to use the word swarm to describe them. A bit of emotion wouldn't go amiss in Cameron's sake and would certainly improve his overall policymaking which as far I can gather is to stick his head in the sand.
You're emotional. You should be rational. Not wishing to excuse the Germans in any way for what the Nazis did, a lot of what we subsequently did was vengeful and achieved nothing. I would like there to be a solution to the current problem not to fight amongst ourselves about who is more horrified by the pictorial representation of the results of tragedies/ atrocities.
That Blair piece feels a bit more personal and even sassy than his last such attempt at an intervention. I think I can just about detect the main theme though, it's very subtle.
There is a politics of parallel reality going on, in which reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all...
Anyone listening? Nope. In fact, the opposite. It actually makes them more likely to support him...
It’s a revolution but within a hermetically sealed bubble – not the Westminster one they despise, but one just as remote from actual reality...
However, it doesn’t alter the “real” reality. It provides a refuge from it.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
Can't you see that it was absolutely paramount in this case that the patient was billed for the treatment and actually paid for it? Otherwise it will become common knowledge in Nigeria that you can effectively get free treatment on the NHS.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
Can't you see that it was absolutely paramount in this case that the patient was billed for the treatment and actually paid for it? Otherwise it will become common knowledge in Nigeria that you can effectively get free treatment on the NHS.
When you said: "If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?" I didn't think you were talking about billing. We have to bill because we have a careful, balanced system in the UK which would be distorted by entrants. But that does not change the question of whether a person in need of treatment who presents themselves to a hospital in the UK should get treatment.
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
How dare someone writing an analysis (even if one thinks it is flawed) make any sort of assumption about people?! That is such an unusual thing, assuming people think x or y certainly doesn't run through practically every generalised statement about politics ever, from public, pundit and politician, about what the 'people' want, think or need.
In all seriousness, people make assumptions about people and society at large when predicting things. That might be very mistaken, but there's not 'right' to do it or not, it's just what people do as whatever counts as 'evidence' of public opinion will hardly be definitive (out of date, sub samples wrong, question biased, questioner biased, doesn't apply in x because y, etc etc)
What I object to is the pontificating by the likes of Antifrank. In Yes Prime Minister Jim Hacker described the Guardian as being read by people who think they ought to run the country. It is the view that the plebs don't know what's good for them.
If Antifrank wanted to write about the realpolitik he should have stuck to what it might mean for politics in the country and left out his own views on the topic.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
Do you think the NHS should pay for the health care of 170 million Nigerians? If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
How dare someone writing an analysis (even if one thinks it is flawed) make any sort of assumption about people?! That is such an unusual thing, assuming people think x or y certainly doesn't run through practically every generalised statement about politics ever, from public, pundit and politician, about what the 'people' want, think or need.
In all seriousness, people make assumptions about people and society at large when predicting things. That might be very mistaken, but there's not 'right' to do it or not, it's just what people do as whatever counts as 'evidence' of public opinion will hardly be definitive (out of date, sub samples wrong, question biased, questioner biased, doesn't apply in x because y, etc etc)
In Yes Prime Minister Jim Hacker described the Guardian as being read by people who think they ought to run the country. It is the view that the plebs don't know what's good for them. .
Hmm, maybe I should start reading the Guardian more, as I often think the latter, though not the former as I have my doubts that I do not count among the plebs, in fact I think I probably fit in there pretty snugly.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
Do you think the NHS should pay for the health care of 170 million Nigerians? If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
She came specially and in plenty of time.
And in that case she should pay the bill for the treatment. Otherwise countless other people will do the same thing, which will eventually bankrupt the NHS.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
As I've posted elsewhere - this woman came specifically to have her children and she came in plenty of time. The NHS couldn't be arsed to bill her.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
Can't you see that it was absolutely paramount in this case that the patient was billed for the treatment and actually paid for it? Otherwise it will become common knowledge in Nigeria that you can effectively get free treatment on the NHS.
When you said: "If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?" I didn't think you were talking about billing. We have to bill because we have a careful, balanced system in the UK which would be distorted by entrants. But that does not change the question of whether a person in need of treatment who presents themselves to a hospital in the UK should get treatment.
I was talking mainly about billing, although I don't think it's a good idea to encourage health tourism because, once again, it will eventually bankrupt the NHS.
By the way, you may be interested to know that I voted for Labour in 2001 and 2005, the last times that party won an election.
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
That would be fine and dandy if we had a magic money tree with which to pay for all of this. Unfortunatley we don't, which is why foreigners who aren't resident are supposed to pay.
OK- fine- but I don't think any angle is remotely newsworthy.
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
As I've posted elsewhere - this woman came specifically to have her children and she came in plenty of time. The NHS couldn't be arsed to bill her.
There's a forum here where Nigerians are discussing having a child in the USA. Now Nigeria is outside the EU, thus avoiding that hot potato completely... it sounds like she is fairly well to do in the article and could afford to pay - but the NHS haven't chased it up at all !
This is the sort of story which is rarely reported by the BBC or other national broadcasters:
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
Would you like to volunteer to foot the £145,000 bill? Please go ahead.
Jeez Tyson I am just sick of your hand wringing on this site.
Tell you what lets just call it the fucking International Health Service, open it to all comers but just make sure it's the Brits hard work that pays for it with ever lengthening queues and dwindling resources.
I say again to you ask and I asked before.when do we stop? How many do we treat and most importantly how many times do we push down the queue the indigenous people that actually pay for it.
Re economic migrants - It's an impossible challenge and task and from my first hand experience the more you try to help the more that will come until it is overwhelming. The only way to help all concerned is to save the problem a source. Once they get into the hands of the people traffickers it's all over either by death or by increased numbers on infrastructure that is already at point of collapse.
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
How dare someone writing an analysis (even if one thinks it is flawed) make any sort of assumption about people?! That is such an unusual thing, assuming people think x or y certainly doesn't run through practically every generalised statement about politics ever, from public, pundit and politician, about what the 'people' want, think or need.
In all seriousness, people make assumptions about people and society at large when predicting things. That might be very mistaken, but there's not 'right' to do it or not, it's just what people do as whatever counts as 'evidence' of public opinion will hardly be definitive (out of date, sub samples wrong, question biased, questioner biased, doesn't apply in x because y, etc etc)
In Yes Prime Minister Jim Hacker described the Guardian as being read by people who think they ought to run the country. It is the view that the plebs don't know what's good for them. .
Hmm, maybe I should start reading the Guardian more, as I often think the latter, though not the former as I have my doubts that I do not count among the plebs, in fact I think I probably fit in there pretty snugly.
To be honest we're pretty much all plebs. Going off on a tangent the election was a bit surreal. We talk about this stuff most days and then there is a moment in time when the people get to have their say. And what has really damaged Labour, in my opinion, is that they spent five years telling us how terrible the Tories were, and when it came to it the people back the Tories. Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm not sure the Tories were telling us how bad Labour had been at the 2001 and 2005 elections - though perhaps they should!
How about the Trust's waste of public money. I'm sure the £145,000 would be better spent on nurses, to quote everyone's favourite unit.
what would you rather the trust had done?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?
Because we have a health care system based on the principle of need and not desert? One which isn't in the habit of quizzing patients on their means to pay, but treats people to the best of their ability. By the time she required the care and had presented herself to the hospital, there was no other option.
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
Can't you see that it was absolutely paramount in this case that the patient was billed for the treatment and actually paid for it? Otherwise it will become common knowledge in Nigeria that you can effectively get free treatment on the NHS.
When you said: "If not, why should this person be granted treatment simply because they happened to be in the UK at the time they required health care?" I didn't think you were talking about billing. We have to bill because we have a careful, balanced system in the UK which would be distorted by entrants. But that does not change the question of whether a person in need of treatment who presents themselves to a hospital in the UK should get treatment.
I was talking mainly about billing, although I don't think it's a good idea to encourage health tourism because, once again, it will eventually bankrupt the NHS.
By the way, you may be interested to know that I voted for Labour in 2001 and 2005, the last times that party won an election.
In that case Andy let me be clear: the bureaucrats at the hospital should have billed her and followed it up as a business would, i.e. to a certain extent and then consider it a bad debt.
I must admit I'd forgotten your previous political allegiance but not quite sure why you mention it now?
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
My goodness, imagine how some (mainly on the left) would complain about a new era of empire building!... But it is certainly something to be considered. I doubt the government is doing so in any concerted way.
I did not say it would be part of the EC. It would be an independent state. Nurtured by the EC but built and defended by the people who settle there. Its constitution would have to be strictly secular. People who want religion would have to go elsewhere. Maybe have as its President Richard Dawkins or a similar atheist......
This site is taking a very serious tone for a Saturday night in August.
I would like to officially state that I have not laid Jeremy Corbyn.
Nor has he laid me.
Bless you. I was just going to drop a dead cat into the debate, as is the habit of our times when it comes to distracting the political discourse so I understand, but that's much better.
One of the worst things is that our foreign aid has helped to prop up many odious regimes in Africa and elsewhere which have made life so unbearable for their inhabitants that they're willing to risk anything to get to the West, the same West which is routinely excoriated by the corrupt leaders of those countries.
SeanT a good idea. Why not just lease an uninhabited and undeveloped area on the coast of Libya from the Libyans and use some of the Aid budgets to pay the Libyan's a rent on a 100 year lease. Use other money in the aid budgets to create the infrastructure nd employ the migrants to build it up. provide EC trade deal with this new international zone on same terms as if it were part of the EC. Then anyone picked up is re-sited to this new area. Allow room for say a 5 million city capacity and expect it to grow at the rate of 1/2 million to 1million each year.
My goodness, imagine how some (mainly on the left) would complain about a new era of empire building!... But it is certainly something to be considered. I doubt the government is doing so in any concerted way.
I did not say it would be part of the EC. It would be an independent state. Nurtured by the EC but built and defended by the people who settle there. Its constitution would have to be strictly secular. People who want religion would have to go elsewhere. Maybe have as its President Richard Dawkins or a similar atheist......
That has the added bonus of ridding us of Richard Dawkins. It's win-win.
This site is taking a very serious tone for a Saturday night in August. I would like to officially state that I have not laid Jeremy Corbyn. Nor has he laid me.
"SIR JOHN CHILCOT has been forced to reopen his inquiry into the Iraq War after senior military figures complained the first draft of his report was riddled with errors, according to sources who have seen the papers.
Senior commanders complained Chilcot and his team had blamed them for decisions that were actually made by politicians.
When the generals were sent the report’s conclusions, five to six months ago, the reaction was so aggressive that it has caused a wholesale rethink of the document, delaying publication until at least June next year."
As is often the case the big elephant in the room is Islam. The British public just don't want any more of its adherents unless they speak English, have marketable skills, aren't fanatics or benefits breeders and are Westernised enough to fit in. If you import third world people, you get third world behaviour.
Frances Coppola published an analytical guest post which called PQE Snake Oil - blunt but nothing more and probably the majority opinion - and he's rabbiting on about Libel and all sorts.
The chap becomes more like Inspector Clouseau every day.
...trapped in their own “hermetically sealed bubble” in which “reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all”.
One can say the same thing about Blair and his Iraq "dossier"
...trapped in their own “hermetically sealed bubble” in which “reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all”.
One can say the same thing about Blair and his Iraq "dossier"
As is often the case the big elephant in the room is Islam. The British public just don't want any more of its adherents unless they speak English, have marketable skills, aren't fanatics or benefits breeders and are Westernised enough to fit in. If you import third world people, you get third world behaviour.
Blunt and not the whole picture, but probably a significant part of it.
It strikes me that the main problem is that "immigration" is an incredibly broad issue but is generally approached in the media, in polls and so on as a single problem. Similarly, the language used on the issue is often deployed incorrectly and interchangeably, words like 'migrant', 'refugee' and so on being utilised seemingly at random.
It seems to me that we are rather approaching the problem (if we are to define it as such) backwards; we should address the causes of people coming, rather than competing as to high high a wall we can build to keep them out. There will probably always be countries in which people live in mortal peril, and I imagine that there is reasonable agreement that asylum seekers from these areas should be granted leave to remain.
Moving on to economic migrants - how can we improve their opportunities in their country of origin? I believe relatively few people 'prefer' Britain to their home country without the economic incentive. Are we moving along this road already? Is it so terrible that people from (for example) Poland spend a few years here, earn some money, which they can then invest in their own country, thus starting businesses and growing their economy?
What also tends to go under-reported is that opposition to immigration - paradoxically - is lower in areas with substantial amounts of it already. Those areas given the chance to see the benefits of immigration welcome it more than less diverse communities whose only view is of the brown-faced lorry-climbing bogeymen on the news.
It strikes me that the main problem is that "immigration" is an incredibly broad issue but is generally approached in the media, in polls and so on as a single problem. Similarly, the language used on the issue is often deployed incorrectly and interchangeably, words like 'migrant', 'refugee' and so on being utilised seemingly at random.
It seems to me that we are rather approaching the problem (if we are to define it as such) backwards; we should address the causes of people coming, rather than competing as to high high a wall we can build to keep them out. There will probably always be countries in which people live in mortal peril, and I imagine that there is reasonable agreement that asylum seekers from these areas should be granted leave to remain.
Moving on to economic migrants - how can we improve their opportunities in their country of origin? I believe relatively few people 'prefer' Britain to their home country without the economic incentive. Are we moving along this road already? Is it so terrible that people from (for example) Poland spend a few years here, earn some money, which they can then invest in their own country, thus starting businesses and growing their economy?
What also tends to go under-reported is that opposition to immigration - paradoxically - is lower in areas with substantial amounts of it already. Those areas given the chance to see the benefits of immigration welcome it more than less diverse communities whose only view is of the brown-faced lorry-climbing bogeymen on the news.
"What also tends to go under-reported is that opposition to immigration - paradoxically - is lower in areas with substantial amounts of it already. Those areas given the chance to see the benefits of immigration welcome it more than less diverse communities whose only view is of the brown-faced lorry-climbing bogeymen on the news."
Hardly surprising that areas with high immigration approve of it more, immigrants are obviously not going to disapprove are they? Plus the people who really don't like it have moved elsewhere
Comments
Asylum seekers mostly hope to return to their home communities once the crisis is over (IF it is ever over). Keeping them together rather than making a European diaspora out of them would enable the refugees to work in an expat community (hopefully temporary) where they would have no pressure to conform to a host community.
'Have a look at the South East Region, say Sussex or Kent on Google maps satellite. Plenty of space. Not like central London.'
That must be why getting to and fro from Gatwick & Heathrow has become longer and longer,not to mention trying to get around the M25.
FWIW- I've phoned a few Labour friends in the last few days, and like me, none have voted Corbyn- all pretty much have gone for Burnham but all expect Corbyn to win. Think of that of what you will- we are all metropolitan, middle aged lefties.
I though am still well green on a Corbyn victory- and all my betting eggs remain there.
Wonder why they weren't saying this all along, rather than let us think that it was all down to people replying to the inquiry dragging their feet.
13% at the GE was an incredible achievement for UKIP. Because they have been around that level in the polls for 3-4 years now people dismiss it/play it down, but ask AntiFrank, tim, Neil and others what chance they thought UKIP had of scoring double figures at the GE back in 2013... I laid them all 4/6 (60%) UKIP would get less than 10% and they bit my hand off. Like him or not, most of it was down to Farage, and currently there is no one in the party capable of replacing him
They said that a few days ago. But they stopped taking evidence in February 2011. The idea that it is the Maxwellisation process that has stopped these bumbling incompetents from releasing the report is ridiculous.
The reason is that they're bumbling incompetents, albeit well-paid ones.
Requiring imported skills is a symptom of the failures of our education system and is regrettable, potentially adding to the costs of our public services.
I don't know what else to say, other than the world is sometimes a pretty shitty place.
"Nigerian mother let off £145,000 NHS bill after birth of quins
A London hospital has said it will not pursue a Nigerian woman who owes it £145,000 for the cost of giving birth there after she travelled to Britain "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11832487/Nigerian-mother-let-off-145000-NHS-bill-after-birth-of-quins.html
'Wonder why they weren't saying this all along, rather than let us think that it was all down to people replying to the inquiry dragging their feet.'
Four years after the witness statements ended they now come up with this excuse ?
Actually if you do that first then everyone will cheer up and probably won't care about the illegal immigrants.
There is the past, and then there is the future. Farage may well be a busted flush - his repeated inability to get elected to parliament and his pathetic (un)resignation are hardly signs of a stellar politician. He's also very damaged goods.
Perhaps he has taken UKIP as far as he can go. Perhaps he has persuaded everyone he is able to persuade, and it is time for someone else to take on the mantle and improve the party's support. Evans has shown herself as reasonably competent on TV and radio, and she produced that manifesto. She is fresh.
It might be time for Farage to step back a little and become UKIP's heart, whilst Evans becomes its head.
If not, UKIP further embraces the concept that it is little more than the 'Farage Party'.
Or a broadcaster could say that the NHS treated someone (no matter their clinical need or where they were born) humanely which isn't much of a story at all.
But the question is whether he is the guy who can take UKIP to 18-19%, when they start getting reasonable numbers of seats.
I don't know if he is.
Spain has two areas of sovereign territory in North Aftrica which would be ideal - Ceuta and Melilla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla
This happens time and time again in football. A smallish club achieves a consistent level of success with a dominant manager at the helm.. then one day they say he has "taken the club as far as he can" and replace him with a coach with new, fresh ideas.. the club go into freefall as the people in charge had got used to overachieving and took maintaining that level of success as par for the course
So I guess you are thinking "UKIP need to reach out to people like yourself etc etc", by outing Farage. I think what would happen is people like yourself would like UKIP more than you do now, and still vote for whoever you vote for, while people that vote UKIP now may cease to do so in the future
https://www.randpaul.com/bumpersticker
And, there is nothing better than showing the actual footage of what is going on, to pull on those emotions and to show that we are human. Why did we force the Germans post WW2 to watch the video atrocities of what they had perpetrated on other humans?
I would love Cameron to look at these pictures, and to meet and speak with the migrants who are risking their lives, their children lives to escape war and poverty and then to use the word swarm to describe them. A bit of emotion wouldn't go amiss in Cameron's sake and would certainly improve his overall policymaking which as far I can gather is to stick his head in the sand.
'Why would any sensible news outlet want to broadcast this story in this light, unless there is a miserable, people loathing agenda to follow- then post galore, and then we can all merrily hate this Nigerian sponging bitch and feel so much better......'
But the so called 'sensible'news outlets tell us daily how strained resources are in the NHS,but hey ho any abuse is not to be reported.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw
Of course, as long as the Conservatives do a good job then UKIP won't advance regardless who is leader. However, if the Conservatives screw up, some might look around at the other options. UKIP need to be ready as a serious party to scoop up those votes. Thankfully, they do not appear to be doing that.
I don't think building another refugee camp or safe haven on a part of a sandy part of north Africa will stop the flow.
My solution to this crisis would be for countries like Germany and Sweden to get tough on immigration,these countries are part of the problem with they soft stance on immigration from north Arica/Syria,it's giving a message,you get here,you stay.
Make a deal with North African countries that a EU naval immigration force can return people straight away from they boats back to the N African shores,that includes getting some sort of deal with Libya.
Sorry to sound Harsh but you need to send a message that the EU is getting tough on all immigration,even refugee immigration,any soft stance and it will fail.
Then you will see the numbers drop in the Mediterranean crossings and the deaths of these poor people cut.
UKIP does not need to reach out to me. I am unlikely to vote for it unless they had a stellar candidate in my area (it'll be interesting to see who they put up for the council by-election next month - I've only heard of the Conservative and Lib Dem so far). (*)
As I've said many times passim, I vote for candidates, not parties, although the party does play a part. Hence I voted Conservative at the GE, and Labour at the locals on the same day.
I would find it very hard to vote to vote for any UKIP candidate with Farage as leader; I might be more liable to under a different leader without such baggage. I am probably not alone.
But hey! It's not my party.
(*) Edit: I've just checked and the full list of candidates has been released. The UKIP lady is the only one from outside the ward.
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SoPN - Bourn.pdf
The Telegraph reported this to further its agenda on economic migrants. Fine-- we know that the Telegraph doesn't think much of them. But why would you want a public broadcaster to follow suit?
let her endure the great risks associated with muliple childbirth?
"this thread isn't going to end well."
"I know there'll be more abuse, but it's a decent last try. Everything is poison from Blair's lips though..."
That's practically praise from what I expected to see immediately.
Love this one too
"He's probably right that Labour is doomed if Corbyn becomes leader. But why does that matter? For once, just once, we will be able to vote for an honest politician. I'm happy to pay that price."
I guess the price of the country 'suffering' under the Tories is really not that bad then, which I always feels undermines the passionate hatred that PurityLabour types often espouse.
Hate the Tories? Yes. But not so much that compromise in order to beat them is necessary or desirable. Fair enough I guess, if they've thought it through.
The personal experience is what they see happening elsewhere. They probably don't want it to happen to where they live. Some Londoners find it hard to understand why anyone wouldn't want their home town to be like London. The gap between London and the rest of the country is massive.
"and believe, incorrectly, that Britain is in the frontline of this."
Sorry - what gives you the right to make an assumption about what people think? You shouldn't assume that everyone who isn't a high flying professional is selfish and only concerned with what affects them (though, I'd argue that we all have a right to defend our own interests).
The practical issues with your scheme are numerous, but not insurmountable. Any such area would need the basics for life: food, water, shelter and sanitation. These may not be easy or cheap to conjure up out of the desert, although the refugee camps are good examples. It would cost.
Then there are the political issues. As a remote example, what happens (if.when IS get to the borders of this area. Do our troops fight them to protect the refugees, or do they do a Dutch and allow another Srebrenica.
But it is certainly something to be considered. I doubt the government is doing so in any concerted way.
Interesting too how Blair compares Corbyn to Trump and Sanders, Le Pen and Syriza and the SNP as a reflection of the populist wave sweeping much of the west
In all seriousness, people make assumptions about people and society at large when predicting things. That might be very mistaken, but there's not 'right' to do it or not, it's just what people do as whatever counts as 'evidence' of public opinion will hardly be definitive (out of date, sub samples wrong, question biased, questioner biased, doesn't apply in x because y, etc etc)
As to chasing up the money yes the trust may have failed -I don't know about that.
Tell you what lets just call it the fucking International Health Service, open it to all comers but just make sure it's the Brits hard work that pays for it with ever lengthening queues and dwindling resources.
I say again to you ask and I asked before.when do we stop? How many do we treat and most importantly how many times do we push down the queue the indigenous people that actually pay for it.
Re economic migrants - It's an impossible challenge and task and from my first hand experience the more you try to help the more that will come until it is overwhelming. The only way to help all concerned is to save the problem a source. Once they get into the hands of the people traffickers it's all over either by death or by increased numbers on infrastructure that is already at point of collapse.
You are just too naive to see it.
There is a politics of parallel reality going on, in which reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all...
Anyone listening? Nope. In fact, the opposite. It actually makes them more likely to support him...
It’s a revolution but within a hermetically sealed bubble – not the Westminster one they despise, but one just as remote from actual reality...
However, it doesn’t alter the “real” reality. It provides a refuge from it.
Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan tantamount to surrender to Argentina, warns wounded veteran Simon Weston
Simon Weston has called Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan "repugnant surrender"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11833264/Jeremy-Corbyns-Falklands-plan-tantamount-to-surrender-to-Argentina-warns-wounded-veteran-Simon-Weston.html
If Antifrank wanted to write about the realpolitik he should have stuck to what it might mean for politics in the country and left out his own views on the topic.
By the way, you may be interested to know that I voted for Labour in 2001 and 2005, the last times that party won an election.
I must admit I'd forgotten your previous political allegiance but not quite sure why you mention it now?
I would like to officially state that I have not laid Jeremy Corbyn.
Nor has he laid me.
"SIR JOHN CHILCOT has been forced to reopen his inquiry into the Iraq War after senior military figures complained the first draft of his report was riddled with errors, according to sources who have seen the papers.
Senior commanders complained Chilcot and his team had blamed them for decisions that were actually made by politicians.
When the generals were sent the report’s conclusions, five to six months ago, the reaction was so aggressive that it has caused a wholesale rethink of the document, delaying publication until at least June next year."
"Tony Blair’s final plea: Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics
Former PM says Jeremy Corbyn is operating in a ‘parallel’ reality and warns that the Labour party is driving over a cliff"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/28/frances-coppolas-snake-oil-of-conventional-macroeconomics/
Frances Coppola published an analytical guest post which called PQE Snake Oil - blunt but nothing more and probably the majority opinion - and he's rabbiting on about Libel and all sorts.
The chap becomes more like Inspector Clouseau every day.
https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/637012164226756608/photo/1
One can say the same thing about Blair and his Iraq "dossier"
It strikes me that the main problem is that "immigration" is an incredibly broad issue but is generally approached in the media, in polls and so on as a single problem. Similarly, the language used on the issue is often deployed incorrectly and interchangeably, words like 'migrant', 'refugee' and so on being utilised seemingly at random.
It seems to me that we are rather approaching the problem (if we are to define it as such) backwards; we should address the causes of people coming, rather than competing as to high high a wall we can build to keep them out. There will probably always be countries in which people live in mortal peril, and I imagine that there is reasonable agreement that asylum seekers from these areas should be granted leave to remain.
Moving on to economic migrants - how can we improve their opportunities in their country of origin? I believe relatively few people 'prefer' Britain to their home country without the economic incentive. Are we moving along this road already? Is it so terrible that people from (for example) Poland spend a few years here, earn some money, which they can then invest in their own country, thus starting businesses and growing their economy?
What also tends to go under-reported is that opposition to immigration - paradoxically - is lower in areas with substantial amounts of it already. Those areas given the chance to see the benefits of immigration welcome it more than less diverse communities whose only view is of the brown-faced lorry-climbing bogeymen on the news.
"What also tends to go under-reported is that opposition to immigration - paradoxically - is lower in areas with substantial amounts of it already. Those areas given the chance to see the benefits of immigration welcome it more than less diverse communities whose only view is of the brown-faced lorry-climbing bogeymen on the news."
Hardly surprising that areas with high immigration approve of it more, immigrants are obviously not going to disapprove are they? Plus the people who really don't like it have moved elsewhere