I've lost all respect for Merkel. Taking it on herself to offer asylum to 800000 people without setting up registration facilities at source is tantamount to encouraging people to undertake the perilous journey. In my opinion she has blood on her hands
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
The vital question then becomes what is the shape of a post-Assad Syria ? There seems an assumption IS will take over (which I don't share) but we may finish up with a Somalia-type situation with virtually autonomous regions (on the model of Puntland and Somaliland), one of which will be the IS-controlled region and another will be the Kurdish-controlled region.
If the desire is to maintain a unified Syria, there needs to be some impetus put into the provision of a proper political settlement together with a commitment to rebuild and re-invest.
This sort of thing did great damage to the cause of supporting migration in the UK:
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed."
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Turkey is a safe country, though Kurds may still have a legitimate asylum claim in Greece ... perhaps.
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
A Corbyn victory will not only damage Labour but also the UK's international standing. It will provide succour to many of our enemies and will bewilder many of our friends. If you vote Corbyn and that ends up damaging UK interests you will be complicit in it.
Hm. It's a toughie. I'm tending towards Burnham, no chance of him becoming PM but Labour will probably stick with him until 2020 and let him put forward a bland Miliband Mk II manifesto.
But voting for Burnham was not what I paid £3 to the Labour Party for the privilege of doing. It probably has to be either Corbyn or just stay out of it and mind my own business...
Labour is a long way from government whoever wins. But when Corbyn wins it will damage the UK, not just Labour. Why be complicit in putting a spring in the step of all those who wish the UK ill?
As far as I can tell, there will be a limited gentrification of Govanhill, clearing out its ghetto status.
It may merely be co-incidence but I suspect it has more to do with getting rid of Scotland's main ghetto of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry.
Presumably these people will go somewhere else though?
Of course and have better lives, many only remain in the area to participate in the Sarwar fiefdom having been tied into the sort of tribal system they remember from home instead of doing what most immigrants to Scotland have done and integrated into Scottish society.
This sort of thing did great damage to the cause of supporting migration in the UK:
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed."
Paris (AFP) - A market in fake Syrian passports has sprung up, particularly in Turkey, to help migrants and refugees enter the EU, the head of Europe's border agency Frontex said on Tuesday.
"There are people who are in Turkey now who buy fake Syrian passports because they know Syrians get the right to asylum in all the member states of the European Union," Fabrice Leggeri told French radio station Europe 1.
"People who use fake Syrian passports often speak Arabic. They may come from North Africa or the Middle East but they have the profile of economic migrants," he said.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
From those most needy in the camps on Syrians borders? Or from the most wealthy, strong or pushy enough to get to Europe? Because if it's the latter it's a foolish policy.
Yvette has really annoyed me with her late charge, having gotten rid of most of my enormous green on her at about 15.0. Where was this Yvette earlier? Or it is just that Burnham has gone from bad to worse?
I've lost all respect for Merkel. Taking it on herself to offer asylum to 800000 people without setting up registration facilities at source is tantamount to encouraging people to undertake the perilous journey. In my opinion she has blood on her hands
If we're going to take on Syrian refugees, it is CRUCIAL that we do this. We need to make it abundantly clear that noone hanging about in Calais will be let in.
Yvette has really annoyed me with her late charge, having gotten rid of most of my enormous green on her at about 15.0. Where was this Yvette earlier? Or it is just that Burnham has gone from bad to worse?
Burnham's gone from dire to appalling. He makes you yearn for Ed Miliband.
Plus I reckon all shrewd punters must have a read a truly excellent article on the internet saying why Corbyn might not win that's shifted the market
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Turkey is a safe country, though Kurds may still have a legitimate asylum claim in Greece ... perhaps.
Your point is valid and tops the assertion by foxinsox. These people we are currently talking about are Syrians. If they have been displaced they should remain as close to their own country as possible. Our duty is in effect to Turkey to help them care for them. If they have been displaced because of civil war and terrorism then we should act collectively with the EU / NATO / UN - or whatever - to destroy the ISIS terrorists and remove the Assad government.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
You don't leave from an ISIS controlled area on a boat though. If you can get to a port you are either in Turkey, Lebanon or Assad territory already.
Yes, but seeing no future there. Hence the need to move on. Worth noting that the country with the most Syrian refugees is Turkey. Many do stay there.
Yvette has really annoyed me with her late charge, having gotten rid of most of my enormous green on her at about 15.0. Where was this Yvette earlier? Or it is just that Burnham has gone from bad to worse?
Both. Cooper has shown some late fight and Burnham has shown none whatsoever - what exactly is his offering? - but it's too little too late other than for second place.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Source?
He was just on Sky News.
He's an idiot chasing favourable headlines.
What's the betting none are housed in cosy, comfortable Tatton, but dumped upon the other poor in sink estates and cheap B and B's?
Or more cynically because he is in charge of the renegotiation and Germany and Austria have been trumpeting about how not taking more will damage the chances of a successful renegotiation. Now that he has said this he will be in line to bring home a slightly larger sprig of tinsel.
If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.
How many PBers when at school would have sent a photo of themselves, naked, to another pupil who they were not in a relationship with?
And what do you think of someone who would do this?
Senfing messages with photographs of your genitals seems to be quite common as part of the flirting process now.
(No, i don't understand either)
And, it's not just young people who do it, as Congressman Weiner and Brooks Newmark showed.
Like you, I don't understand it. I think I've led a sheltered life. Until yesterday on PB, I'd never heard of "line ups" or "seagulling."
Dare i say this.. I've exchanged 'personal' text messages with established girlfriends, the last of which became my wife, but it went no further than that.
It certainly didn't involve 'multimedia' content.
We must congratulate your wife on her indefatigability.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Source?
He was just on Sky News.
What was the full context of what he said?
I was walking through the lobby so only caught part of the interview
Had a look at twitter
@Jack_Blanchard: George Osborne tells Sky "criminal gangs" are responsible for the death of the Syrian boy on the Turkish beach pictured in today's papers
@Jack_Blanchard_: Government on the run after today's grim front pages. George Osborne tells Sky News "we will go on taking more" Syrian refugees
@MSmithsonPB: Ladbrokes say YVETTE COOPER has seen big betting move. Odds now 6/1 from 10/1. She's now 2nd favourite.
Still don't think she has a snowflake's.
One problem for her is that Burnham's second preferences are likely to break more heavily for Corbyn than hers would had Burnham managed to force a third-round count. It might only be 2:1 rather than 3:1 but at the margins, that will matter.
Yvette has really annoyed me with her late charge, having gotten rid of most of my enormous green on her at about 15.0. Where was this Yvette earlier? Or it is just that Burnham has gone from bad to worse?
Both. Cooper has shown some late fight and Burnham has shown none whatsoever - what exactly is his offering? - but it's too little too late other than for second place.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
If Yvette Cooper comes second to Jeremy Corbyn, it won't help party unity. She said yesterday that she was very unlikely to serve in a shadow Cabinet under him.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Indeed. So he will continue with the Gateway Protection Program. Nothing controversial, or even new there.
Yvette has really annoyed me with her late charge, having gotten rid of most of my enormous green on her at about 15.0. Where was this Yvette earlier? Or it is just that Burnham has gone from bad to worse?
Both. Cooper has shown some late fight and Burnham has shown none whatsoever - what exactly is his offering? - but it's too little too late other than for second place.
I'm all over Yvette for 2nd.
NB My chief concern with this would be a Corbyn R1 victory.
I greened out at a princely £4.52 profit on the Labour leadership election long ago and I am not going to dabble even so much as a tow in again no matter what happens or what info I gain.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
So actually he said nothing. Well nothing other than some platitudes, which is probably the best that can be hoped for in the circumstances.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Hmm, sounds as though Osborne has announced a continuation of the UK’s present commitment to Syrian refugees – and far removed from Merkel’s decision to let everyone in.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
You don't leave from an ISIS controlled area on a boat though. If you can get to a port you are either in Turkey, Lebanon or Assad territory already.
Yes, but seeing no future there. Hence the need to move on. Worth noting that the country with the most Syrian refugees is Turkey. Many do stay there.
The BBC's example case showed a woman working a middle class job in Istanbul, but she still made the trip.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
If Yvette Cooper comes second to Jeremy Corbyn, it won't help party unity. She said yesterday that she was very unlikely to serve in a shadow Cabinet under him.
The most divisive result for Labour would probably be something like Corbyn 51%, Cooper 49% in the final round. Cooper supporters would know they would have won easily if new members hadn't been able to join since the election. As things stand I think this outcome is becoming increasingly likely.
A few journos are reading The First Secretary of State's comments as the beginning of a shift in government policy.
It sounds a reaffirmation of current policy to me.
It was a non-statement, designed to sound reasonable to people on both sides of the argument. If both you and TSE think it sounds reasonable, its a fair bet it actually says nothing at all.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Of course we will. What we should also be doing is leading attempts to find a solution, not leaving it to Germany.
Germany's actions are not a solution in any, way shape or form. They are, at best, a sticking plaster over a gunshot wound, and covering that wound might cause it to go septic.
Having said that, I don't know what the best thing to do is. There is no end to people suffering: after Syria, would we agree to take in anyone from eastern Ukraine wanting to escape Russian aggression? How about North Korea?
In the meantime, the people traffickers get richer.
Actually, here's something that could be done: the UN could call for the people traffickers who are making money out of this human suffering to be arrested and tried in international court. These are not do-gooders wanting to help people to a better life: they are mercenaries who will take massive (for the victims) amounts of money and then put them in peril.
The UN should send a message: smuggle people and we'll be after you.
If Yvette Cooper comes second to Jeremy Corbyn, it won't help party unity. She said yesterday that she was very unlikely to serve in a shadow Cabinet under him.
The most divisive result for Labour would probably be something like Corbyn 51%, Cooper 49% in the final round. Cooper supporters would know they would have won easily if new members hadn't been able to join since the election. As things stand I think this outcome is becoming increasingly likely.
And of course once the breakdowns are "leaked" it will be obvious that Corbyn only won because of the £3 ers.
Still will put YC in a decent position for the next leadership election.
"Many do stay there". Indeed and we can wish them well and provide what aid we can for them, but is this not the danger in Merkel's pronouncements of yesterday, that many staying will become "fewer" because they have now expressly had the El Dorado of Germany dangled in front of them? Those setting off over the next few weeks will have an even more hazardous journey as the weather and sea conditions worsen too. The fear is for all the warm self feeling many in the German establishment (and their press for sure, reading some of it today) will get and trumpet around Europe, the practical reality is they have just poured petrol on the fire and many more are going to sadly struggle en route and fall into traffickers' grasp as a result, or worse
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
Just stick a 1 next to Corbyn, Mr Sykes.
Don't be a bottler for Burnham !
No no no and multiple times no. Burnham is the one to vote for. Remember it this way - The weird with the beard just a commie in the lobby; Burnham will earn'em for the crew that is blue. Repeat after me...
It genuinely feels like a 2 horse race with Yvette Cooper finishing strongly. If only she had found it within herself to begin like this in May. It may well be too little too late for her, but it seems to me that if there's any undecided voters (or those just getting their vote) and they don't want Corbyn then Cooper will be the main beneficiary now and not Andy Burnham.
That's my impression too. Personally I think it is indeed too late, mainly because the ABC message hasn't got through, not least due to the squabble between Cooper and Burnham camps a couple of weeks ago, which polarised non-Corbyn voters. Lots of people have voted for one ABC candidate but not the others on 2nd or 3rd preference.
It's an interesting question, though, what sort of reception Cooper will get if she does win. The media have set up a Corbyn win as a done deal, making her seem like a giant-killer. If she moved swiftly to be inclusive to Corbyn and acknowledge the depth of anti-austerity revulsion in the party, she might do rather well. Conversely, if Corbyn wins he should and probably will try to get Cooper and Burnham both on board.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Isn't that directly at odds with what his boss said yesterday?
What Cameron said is that taking more refugees wouldn't stop people dying...which is true.
The entire media logic on this seems to be:
1) A young child drowning from migration crisis is bad 2) Taking in more migrants is nice 3) Given we are confronted with badness, we must have more niceness
They don't seem to stop to think that doing more of 2) won't improve 1). And it could even make it worse. There needs to be some sensible cause-effect thinking here. The best way to stop people drowning is by stopping people make the journey, and to rescue more people that get in trouble when they do.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Of course we will. What we should also be doing is leading attempts to find a solution, not leaving it to Germany.
Germany's actions are not a solution in any, way shape or form. They are, at best, a sticking plaster over a gunshot wound, and covering that wound might cause it to go septic.
Having said that, I don't know what the best thing to do is. There is no end to people suffering: after Syria, would we agree to take in anyone from eastern Ukraine wanting to escape Russian aggression? How about North Korea?
In the meantime, the people traffickers get richer.
Actually, here's something that could be done: the UN could call for the people traffickers who are making money out of this human suffering to be arrested and tried in international court. These are not do-gooders wanting to help people to a better life: they are mercenaries who will take massive (for the victims) amounts of money and then put them in peril.
The UN should send a message: smuggle people and we'll be after you.
But again, that's easier said than done.
Smuggling gangs from the UK are making fortunes trafficking people out of Calais into this country. There have been enough reports in the media confirming such.
The mind boggles what UKBA are up to, allowing the criminals to pass across the border seemingly unhindered.
ITV's James Mates has tweeted that a man and woman with a baby were on a track at a Hungarian train station in a desperate attempt not to be taken to a migrant camp nearby.
Man and wife with tiny baby throw themselves onto track demanding not to be taken to camps. Getting c distressing pic.twitter.com/ploEd11rAH — James Mates (@jamesmatesitv) September 3, 2015
But he later tweeted that Hungarian police were forced to let them back onto a train.
Hungarian police failed to control those they wanted to take to the camp. Forced to let them back onto train. pic.twitter.com/4yQqVaEwI6 — James Mates (@jamesmatesitv) September 3, 2015
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Is Osborne now actually running the country full-time? Or is Cameron away on holiday? Doesn't seem like a Treasury issue.
The family of a Syrian toddler whose body washed up on a Turkish beach had been trying to emigrate to Canada after fleeing the war-torn town of Kobani, one of their relatives told a Canadian newspaper on Thursday.
A photograph of the tiny body of three-year old Aylan Kurdi washed up in the Aegean resort of Bodrum swept social media on Wednesday, spawning sympathy and outrage at the perceived inaction of developed nations in helping refugees.
His 5-year-old brother Galip and mother Rehan, 35, also died after their boat capsized while trying to reach the Greek island of Kos. His father, Abdullah, was found semi-conscious and taken to hospital near Bodrum, according to Turkey's Sabah newspaper.
It genuinely feels like a 2 horse race with Yvette Cooper finishing strongly. If only she had found it within herself to begin like this in May. It may well be too little too late for her, but it seems to me that if there's any undecided voters (or those just getting their vote) and they don't want Corbyn then Cooper will be the main beneficiary now and not Andy Burnham.
That's my impression too. Personally I think it is indeed too late, mainly because the ABC message hasn't got through, not least due to the squabble between Cooper and Burnham camps a couple of weeks ago, which polarised non-Corbyn voters. Lots of people have voted for one ABC candidate but not the others on 2nd or 3rd preference.
It's an interesting question, though, what sort of reception Cooper will get if she does win. The media have set up a Corbyn win as a done deal, making her seem like a giant-killer. If she moved swiftly to be inclusive to Corbyn and acknowledge the depth of anti-austerity revulsion in the party, she might do rather well. Conversely, if Corbyn wins he should and probably will try to get Cooper and Burnham both on board.
(my bold)
That's to confuse party with country. There may be 'revulsion' at 'austerity' within the Labour party but the Conservatives just won a general election in large part because Labour looked incapable of controlling its spending habit. Until Labour's trusted on the economy then they won't win another election (note - this is an absolute rather than relative measure: they don't necessarily have to be better than the Tories but they do have to be credible).
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Is Osborne now actually running the country full-time? Or is Cameron away on holiday? Doesn't seem like a Treasury issue.
Politics.
Leaves room for Cameron to change tack in a week's time (if he wants to)...
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Yes. I do not see it particularly as a change in policy. This... 'what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy' ... seems pretty clear. As is 'real asylum seekers' .
And someone said - 'Germany is leading ' policy. Well what is happening is that Germany is the first significant stop off for these migrants. And once refugees leave and travel on from the first safe haven they come to they become migrants. Illegal migrants. The people we are mainly talking about are Syrians and they should stay as close to Syria as they can and return as soon as they can. If this principle is thrown away then the future for mass movement is going to be bleak and since Europe is directly attached to a land mass that stretches as far as Korea one way and the southern tip of Africa another way then we should worry.
It genuinely feels like a 2 horse race with Yvette Cooper finishing strongly. If only she had found it within herself to begin like this in May. It may well be too little too late for her, but it seems to me that if there's any undecided voters (or those just getting their vote) and they don't want Corbyn then Cooper will be the main beneficiary now and not Andy Burnham.
That's my impression too. Personally I think it is indeed too late, mainly because the ABC message hasn't got through, not least due to the squabble between Cooper and Burnham camps a couple of weeks ago, which polarised non-Corbyn voters. Lots of people have voted for one ABC candidate but not the others on 2nd or 3rd preference.
It's an interesting question, though, what sort of reception Cooper will get if she does win. The media have set up a Corbyn win as a done deal, making her seem like a giant-killer. If she moved swiftly to be inclusive to Corbyn and acknowledge the depth of anti-austerity revulsion in the party, she might do rather well. Conversely, if Corbyn wins he should and probably will try to get Cooper and Burnham both on board.
(my bold)
That's to confuse party with country. There may be 'revulsion' at 'austerity' within the Labour party but the Conservatives just won a general election in large part because Labour looked incapable of controlling its spending habit. Until Labour's trusted on the economy then they won't win another election (note - this is an absolute rather than relative measure: they don't necessarily have to be better than the Tories but they do have to be credible).
I think Cooper deliberately held back at the start - in order to come through the middle. If Corbyn wasn't on the ballot she would be about to become leader (and I would be collecting my winnings). Hey ho. Let's hope TSE is correct in his analysis.
ITV's James Mates has tweeted that a man and woman with a baby were on a track at a Hungarian train station in a desperate attempt not to be taken to a migrant camp nearby.
Man and wife with tiny baby throw themselves onto track demanding not to be taken to camps. Getting c distressing pic.twitter.com/ploEd11rAH — James Mates (@jamesmatesitv) September 3, 2015
But he later tweeted that Hungarian police were forced to let them back onto a train.
Hungarian police failed to control those they wanted to take to the camp. Forced to let them back onto train. pic.twitter.com/4yQqVaEwI6 — James Mates (@jamesmatesitv) September 3, 2015
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Putting them in Scotland?
I'd start with Westmoreland, followed by North Norfolk and Banff/Buchan....
I do think that Cameron is entitled to gently point out that less than two weeks ago the combined opposition were complaining about the failure of the government to meet its immigration target. And before anyone complains, I know it's a non-sequitur but that's never stopped politicians before.
By the way, can anyone think of reason for someone in France to seek asylum in the UK (other than the existence of a socialist government, of course!)?
"Hungary's leader says the migrant crisis facing Europe is a "German problem" since Germany is where those arriving in the EU "would like to go". PM Viktor Orban said Hungary would not allow migrants to leave its territory without registering. His comments came as Hungarian authorities opened the main rail station in Budapest to hundreds of migrants after a two-day stand-off. One train left, but then stopped near a migrant reception centre."
As to the first, well, I don't see that any party has a 'right' for others not to stick their noses in. It might be more appropriate, even decent, but what this is is essentially a private club holding a debate about it's leadership, but doing so in public and to some degree inviting public involvement in the actual process. Cameron and Farron are not involved in the latter, but as Labour are choosing to have this debate publicly, as is only right and proper, it invites people to comment upon it if they wish. Unwise and inappropriate, perhaps, but Labour have no right to choose their leader without the involvement of Cameron and Farron if they choose to hold the contest in such a manner where, for politicians, it's been inescapable. And I absolute extend that to mean, if they want, Labour are free to comment upon the next Tory contest (in fact in some way they are, if they make comment about Osborne being next leader and how dreadful he would be), if they want.
The issue for me is not what individual Party members say - everyone is entitled to their opinion - but Cameron and Farron are not "ordinary Party members" - they are the leaders and therefore representatives of their respective parties.
I don't consider it appropriate for one Party to officially have a view on the policies of a candidate for the leadership of another Party during the leadership election process. The election of said leader is a matter for the electorate (however defined) of that party. I think Labour have made a dog's breakfast of this election but mostly as a result of the process by which the election takes place. However, that is Labour's problem.
Your last sentence is the key for me. It is Labour's problem - if in this age where these things are decided in public, which I think is a good thing, then youropponents can try to mess with you. That's not honourable, and I agree it's not appropriate in many ways, but you expressed it as a 'right' for Labour not to be messed with, essentially, and I don't think the question of rights enter into at all, in the same way it doesn't actually matter if the party had no democratic vote for leader at all. That would be silly of them, but they can have whatever rules they like for leadership of their club, and their opponents are allowed to poke them.
I watched a very testy press conf on Sky early today between a German EU bod and the Hungarian minister/PM rep.
The Hungarian chappy was very clear that this wasn't their issue - it was Germany's and they invited the migrants in. It was Hungary's job to register them and pass them on. The German guy wasn't very happy - the body language between the two was most hostile.
Merkel's been a complete numpty over this whole thing.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Yes. I do not see it particularly as a change in policy. This... 'what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy' ... seems pretty clear. As is 'real asylum seekers' .
And someone said - 'Germany is leading ' policy. Well what is happening is that Germany is the first significant stop off for these migrants. And once refugees leave and travel on from the first safe haven they come to they become migrants. Illegal migrants. The people we are mainly talking about are Syrians and they should stay as close to Syria as they can and return as soon as they can. If this principle is thrown away then the future for mass movement is going to be bleak and since Europe is directly attached to a land mass that stretches as far as Korea one way and the southern tip of Africa another way then we should worry.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Putting them in Scotland?
I'd start with Westmoreland, followed by North Norfolk and Banff/Buchan....
I do think that Cameron is entitled to gently point out that less than two weeks ago the combined opposition were complaining about the failure of the government to meet its immigration target. And before anyone complains, I know it's a non-sequitur but that's never stopped politicians before.
By the way, can anyone think of reason for someone in France to seek asylum in the UK (other than the existence of a socialist government, of course!)?
Because we apply the rules fairly, whereas in France they pretend to apply them.
If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.
How many PBers when at school would have sent a photo of themselves, naked, to another pupil who they were not in a relationship with?
And what do you think of someone who would do this?
Senfing messages with photographs of your genitals seems to be quite common as part of the flirting process now.
(No, i don't understand either)
And, it's not just young people who do it, as Congressman Weiner and Brooks Newmark showed.
Like you, I don't understand it. I think I've led a sheltered life. Until yesterday on PB, I'd never heard of "line ups" or "seagulling."
Dare i say this.. I've exchanged 'personal' text messages with established girlfriends, the last of which became my wife, but it went no further than that.
It certainly didn't involve 'multimedia' content.
I'm not sure I have the editing skill with multimedia tools to keep up with all this. If you know what I mean. (I mean I'm not good with technology - #explain the joke)
Merkel's been a complete numpty over this whole thing.
The point is, that's Germany's policy. Fine. Germany should take responsibility for it. Merkel is expecting the rest of us to help cash cheques that her country has written.
rottenborough.. Maybe it was just Osborne that was asked the question .. I guess the PM might just be rather busy right now
Sigh - Osborne is Cameron's deputy.
It really ought to be clear that these sad pictures are merely being used as a pretty pathetic stick to beat Cameron with. The dead baby is not being washed up on a British beach. Cameron cannot stop migrants droning in the Med by opening up the channel tunnel to them. Everyone with an agenda - no matter what it is - has a vested interest in seeking to weaken the PM. This applies to any PM. But if Cameron a month ago had said that the Calais crisis was terrible and we must let them all in then these same people would have been after his head just the same. Its what happens in politics. I'm just surprised more people on here do not recognize that.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Fine with me. I hope he didn't also say, therefore, the problem is solved, which is the implication of too many when they present the Merkel plan as a solution to which we are/were not participating.
Merkel's been a complete numpty over this whole thing.
The point is, that's Germany's policy. Fine. Germany should take responsibility for it. Merkel is expecting the rest of us to help cash cheques that her country has written.
I get the impression many German politicians live in a bubble where they assume the rest of Europe shares their views on most issues. So when they decided to allow open door immigration they took it for granted the rest of Europe would broadly agree with the policy as a matter of course. Now they're very surprised to find that most other European countries don't think it's a good idea. Maybe they should have consulted with other EU governments first before announcing the policy?
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Is Osborne now actually running the country full-time? Or is Cameron away on holiday? Doesn't seem like a Treasury issue.
Politics.
Leaves room for Cameron to change tack in a week's time (if he wants to)...
They're a good team, politically at any rate, that's for certain. And if he doesn't change tack, Osborne's primacy becomes more and more ingrained, so when he tries to take over, well, it won't even seem like much of a change.
Huzzah for Osborne he's just said we will take on more Syrian refugees.
Of course we will. What we should also be doing is leading attempts to find a solution, not leaving it to Germany.
Germany's actions are not a solution in any, way shape or form. They are, at best, a sticking plaster over a gunshot wound, and covering that wound might cause it to go septic.
Having said that, I don't know what the best thing to do is. There is no end to people suffering: after Syria, would we agree to take in anyone from eastern Ukraine wanting to escape Russian aggression? How about North Korea?
Of course developed countries should accept refugees from North Korea. If you've made it out of the heavily militarized hermit kingdom to China, then out to a third country while dodging an authoritarian state attempting to send you back to a penal colony or execution, you're clearly effective and determined enough to be an asset to any country lucky enough to get you, and in any case keeping someone that badass out is obviously going to be beyond the capabilities of Theresa May so it's futile to even bother trying.
Osborne: “I was very distressed when I saw it myself this morning, that poor boy lying dead on the beach… what you need to do is first of all tackle ISIS and the criminal gangs who killed that boy… Britain’s always been a home to real asylum seekers, genuine refugees, we’ve taken 5,000 people from the Syrian conflict, we’ll go on taking people and keep it under review…”
Seems a reasonable position.
Is Osborne now actually running the country full-time? Or is Cameron away on holiday? Doesn't seem like a Treasury issue.
Politics.
Leaves room for Cameron to change tack in a week's time (if he wants to)...
It's all so drearily predictable isn't it? #Don'tblamemeIvotedUKIP
Comments
If the desire is to maintain a unified Syria, there needs to be some impetus put into the provision of a proper political settlement together with a commitment to rebuild and re-invest.
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
What's the betting none are housed in cosy, comfortable Tatton, but dumped upon the other poor in sink estates and cheap B and B's?
Plus I reckon all shrewd punters must have a read a truly excellent article on the internet saying why Corbyn might not win that's shifted the market
If they have been displaced because of civil war and terrorism then we should act collectively with the EU / NATO / UN - or whatever - to destroy the ISIS terrorists and remove the Assad government.
Had a look at twitter
@Jack_Blanchard: George Osborne tells Sky "criminal gangs" are responsible for the death of the Syrian boy on the Turkish beach pictured in today's papers
@Jack_Blanchard_: Government on the run after today's grim front pages. George Osborne tells Sky News "we will go on taking more" Syrian refugees
One problem for her is that Burnham's second preferences are likely to break more heavily for Corbyn than hers would had Burnham managed to force a third-round count. It might only be 2:1 rather than 3:1 but at the margins, that will matter.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/639398537181163520
Seems a reasonable position.
Having said that, I don't know what the best thing to do is. There is no end to people suffering: after Syria, would we agree to take in anyone from eastern Ukraine wanting to escape Russian aggression? How about North Korea?
In the meantime, the people traffickers get richer.
Actually, here's something that could be done: the UN could call for the people traffickers who are making money out of this human suffering to be arrested and tried in international court. These are not do-gooders wanting to help people to a better life: they are mercenaries who will take massive (for the victims) amounts of money and then put them in peril.
The UN should send a message: smuggle people and we'll be after you.
But again, that's easier said than done.
Still will put YC in a decent position for the next leadership election.
"Many do stay there". Indeed and we can wish them well and provide what aid we can for them, but is this not the danger in Merkel's pronouncements of yesterday, that many staying will become "fewer" because they have now expressly had the El Dorado of Germany dangled in front of them? Those setting off over the next few weeks will have an even more hazardous journey as the weather and sea conditions worsen too. The fear is for all the warm self feeling many in the German establishment (and their press for sure, reading some of it today) will get and trumpet around Europe, the practical reality is they have just poured petrol on the fire and many more are going to sadly struggle en route and fall into traffickers' grasp as a result, or worse
Remember it this way -
The weird with the beard just a commie in the lobby; Burnham will earn'em for the crew that is blue.
Repeat after me...
It's an interesting question, though, what sort of reception Cooper will get if she does win. The media have set up a Corbyn win as a done deal, making her seem like a giant-killer. If she moved swiftly to be inclusive to Corbyn and acknowledge the depth of anti-austerity revulsion in the party, she might do rather well. Conversely, if Corbyn wins he should and probably will try to get Cooper and Burnham both on board.
1) A young child drowning from migration crisis is bad
2) Taking in more migrants is nice
3) Given we are confronted with badness, we must have more niceness
They don't seem to stop to think that doing more of 2) won't improve 1). And it could even make it worse. There needs to be some sensible cause-effect thinking here. The best way to stop people drowning is by stopping people make the journey, and to rescue more people that get in trouble when they do.
Cooper now in second place here too.
(Sorry TP)
Strong political statement made as art concerning today's tragedy, the comment is spot on as well
The mind boggles what UKBA are up to, allowing the criminals to pass across the border seemingly unhindered.
100,000 didn't register to vote in the Labour leadership election on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn.
There is no media logic. Nevertheless it takes balls of steel to ride out the howls of indignation and mass virtue signalling.
Thatcher had them. Does Dave?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/us-europe-migrants-turkey-idUSKCN0R30Q820150903
The family of a Syrian toddler whose body washed up on a Turkish beach had been trying to emigrate to Canada after fleeing the war-torn town of Kobani, one of their relatives told a Canadian newspaper on Thursday.
A photograph of the tiny body of three-year old Aylan Kurdi washed up in the Aegean resort of Bodrum swept social media on Wednesday, spawning sympathy and outrage at the perceived inaction of developed nations in helping refugees.
His 5-year-old brother Galip and mother Rehan, 35, also died after their boat capsized while trying to reach the Greek island of Kos. His father, Abdullah, was found semi-conscious and taken to hospital near Bodrum, according to Turkey's Sabah newspaper.
That's to confuse party with country. There may be 'revulsion' at 'austerity' within the Labour party but the Conservatives just won a general election in large part because Labour looked incapable of controlling its spending habit. Until Labour's trusted on the economy then they won't win another election (note - this is an absolute rather than relative measure: they don't necessarily have to be better than the Tories but they do have to be credible).
Leaves room for Cameron to change tack in a week's time (if he wants to)...
And someone said - 'Germany is leading ' policy. Well what is happening is that Germany is the first significant stop off for these migrants. And once refugees leave and travel on from the first safe haven they come to they become migrants. Illegal migrants.
The people we are mainly talking about are Syrians and they should stay as close to Syria as they can and return as soon as they can. If this principle is thrown away then the future for mass movement is going to be bleak and since Europe is directly attached to a land mass that stretches as far as Korea one way and the southern tip of Africa another way then we should worry.
Thanks to Merkel it will get much, much worse.
I do think that Cameron is entitled to gently point out that less than two weeks ago the combined opposition were complaining about the failure of the government to meet its immigration target. And before anyone complains, I know it's a non-sequitur but that's never stopped politicians before.
By the way, can anyone think of reason for someone in France to seek asylum in the UK (other than the existence of a socialist government, of course!)?
PM Viktor Orban said Hungary would not allow migrants to leave its territory without registering.
His comments came as Hungarian authorities opened the main rail station in Budapest to hundreds of migrants after a two-day stand-off.
One train left, but then stopped near a migrant reception centre."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34136823
The Hungarian chappy was very clear that this wasn't their issue - it was Germany's and they invited the migrants in. It was Hungary's job to register them and pass them on. The German guy wasn't very happy - the body language between the two was most hostile.
Merkel's been a complete numpty over this whole thing.
The point is, that's Germany's policy. Fine. Germany should take responsibility for it. Merkel is expecting the rest of us to help cash cheques that her country has written.
It really ought to be clear that these sad pictures are merely being used as a pretty pathetic stick to beat Cameron with. The dead baby is not being washed up on a British beach. Cameron cannot stop migrants droning in the Med by opening up the channel tunnel to them.
Everyone with an agenda - no matter what it is - has a vested interest in seeking to weaken the PM. This applies to any PM. But if Cameron a month ago had said that the Calais crisis was terrible and we must let them all in then these same people would have been after his head just the same. Its what happens in politics. I'm just surprised more people on here do not recognize that.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN-krJSWUAAAKhs.jpg:large
Excellent post, Mr Flightpath, but the question remains. What will Cameron do? Mrs T. would have ridden this out.
Will Dave?
Louise Bagshawe
130/450....
"If you really want to save Syrian children, save Syria
The only way to save children like Aylan Kurdi is to go to war against the psychopaths they're fleeing. Everything else is just empty noise "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11841292/If-you-want-to-save-Syrian-children-save-Syria.html