Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
I'm using "virtue signalling" here to mean exactly what it means: making a statement about how decent a person you are rather than addressing the problem. That's exactly what is happening here. We'd have to take hundreds of thousands to make a dent in the figures, and the very act of taking hundreds of thousands would cause hundreds of thousands more to come. So your problem of "helping the rest of Europe deal with these migrants" would be made worst by this proposed solution.
Of course we should help other EU countries a bit more. We should do that by funding the refugee camps properly so they're not such squalid holes, by policing the Mediterranean to stop crossings, by investigating and arresting people traffickers, and by stabilising Syria as best we can.
Ending conflict in MENA and developing the nations concerned is clearly the right and best solution for all concerned.
I'd have a lot more respect for those on the Left if they introduced this objective into their migration policy. But they never do - except for the honorable exception of Nick Cohen.
You can't signal how virtuous you are by saying the ideal solution is that they never have to leave. In fact, if they even think about it at all, they probably feel you risk doing the opposite.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
I'm using "virtue signalling" here to mean exactly what it means: making a statement about how decent a person you are rather than addressing the problem. That's exactly what is happening here. We'd have to take hundreds of thousands to make a dent in the figures, and the very act of taking hundreds of thousands would cause hundreds of thousands more to come. So your problem of "helping the rest of Europe deal with these migrants" would be made worst by this proposed solution.
Of course we should help other EU countries a bit more. We should do that by funding the refugee camps properly so they're not such squalid holes, by policing the Mediterranean to stop crossings, by investigating and arresting people traffickers, and by stabilising Syria as best we can.
Do I think that simply taking migrants is going to solve the problem? No. The migrants are a symptom, not a cause. (I was making the point of needing to do much more on the ground in the middle east in preference to taking refugees at the end of 2013, when I came under assault from all sides for making precisely the point you are now making).
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
We've been doing rather a lot to alleviate the tragedy. Every pound we spend will go a hell of a lot further in the Middle East than it will in Europe.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
I suppose we could help deport them back to the camps.
"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.
I know. It's fantastic isn't it?
The new Labour election system would have worked had it not been for the Cupid Stunts who voted for JC to "widen the debate". If some Labour MPs can use their free vote in favour of something or someone they have no interest in promoting how the hell could you trust them on anything. Even young children know instinctively that that's not what you do. Who knows where this will finish up.
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.
It's the same thing as us having to contribute to various Eurozone bailouts. We said the single currency was a bad idea, they did it anyway, and then they give us part of the bill.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
And that's why it's called virtue signalling - because the arguments of those doing it reflect it back on those who disagree to call out whether or not they give a flying f**k about people in suffering.
If you want that to stop, stop doing it.
Incidentally, FPT, I agree entirely with your comments on Boris Johnson. I won't vote for him.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.
Given the rate at which German public opinion is turning, I doubt if Merkel is even carrying her own people with her.
But is that true? CDU/CSU polling seems very stable and only 33% want her to resign.
I think she's playing to some need for national atonement deep in the German pschy.
What I take virtual signalling to mean is when someone says something like we should take more migrants when they themselves would never do anything personally to assist with that aim such as taking a migrant in as a lodger in their own home. They want to feel good but without actually doing anything concrete about it.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
.....
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Proof that you can't win - someone got strongly criticised for doing exactly as you believe those who support taking more migrants should act:
"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.
I know. It's fantastic isn't it?
The new Labour election system would have worked had it not been for the Cupid Stunts who voted for JC to "widen the debate". If some Labour MPs can use their free vote in favour of something or someone they have no interest in promoting how the hell could you trust them on anything. Even young children know instinctively that that's not what you do. Who knows where this will finish up.
Wonder if there'll be a cross section of MPs abstaining/voting for & those of the 35 who nominated Jeremy Corbyn.
Will self confessed 'moron' Ma Beckett be in that one
I think the Germans will do a wonderful job of looking after their invited guests..They have always been wonderful and generous hosts..taking people from all over Europe just a few years ago
What I take virtual signalling to mean is when someone says something like we should take more migrants when they themselves would never do anything personally to assist with that aim such as taking a migrant in as a lodger in their own home. They want to feel good but without actually doing anything concrete about it.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
.....
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Proof that you can't win - someone got strongly criticised for doing exactly as you believe those who support taking more migrants should act:
Because it was utter cant. If it was all helpless young women with children, who wouldnt want to help? Would she be so keen on a seventeen year old male for Eritrea ?
Germany has been remarkably stupid in its response to the migrant crisis. It has been like fighting an obesity epidemic with an inexhaustible supply of pies. Why should the UK pay to remedy Germany's stupidity? We had enough of that in the Twentieth Century, thank you very much.
Being hard-headed now will save far more heartache further on. Those who are already in Europe are not those in the firing line - and so are not in the greatest need.
Germany has a population economic issue that we don't have btw - it is in Germany's long term interests to take as many migrants as they can. Or so the economists tell me. Our circumstances are different.
Because it was utter cant. If it was all helpless young women with children, who wouldnt want to help? Would she be so keen on a seventeen year old male for Eritrea ?
So let's get this straight. Those of us that think that in the present emergency we should take more migrants must:
1) open the doors of our own homes to migrants; and 2) ensure that those migrants that cross our threshold are of sufficiently poor character and background
before we're allowed to comment on the subject at all?
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis,
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.
Nothing makes one more unpopular than being proved right.
I've occasionally found myself being hated by a client, for advising them not to sign an agreement, or lease, which would be hugely detrimental to them. The reason is, because I've destroyed their dreams.
It's clear to me that if Labour were still in power they'd have caved in to the EU and immigration would be far higher. Given it's the number one issue to the public they will be out of power for quite a long time.
Frankly, I'm surprised Cameron has been so robust and firm on this. Pleasantly surprised and pleased, but surprised nonetheless.
Germany has a population economic issue that we don't have btw - it is in Germany's long term interests to take as many migrants as they can. Or so the economists tell me. Our circumstances are different.
That's probably the biggest red herring going.
Germany's population crisis didn't just happen this year it's been around for decades. At any time Germany could have let more people from it's traditional hinterland of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia , Hungary or ex Yugoslavia enter the country. They have long establised communities which will help arrivals and a history of integration
The germans didn't do it. For decades.
This crisis has little to do with do population and much to do with gesture politics.
Germany has been remarkably stupid in its response to the migrant crisis. It has been like fighting an obesity epidemic with an inexhaustible supply of pies. Why should the UK pay to remedy Germany's stupidity? We had enough of that in the Twentieth Century, thank you very much.
Being hard-headed now will save far more heartache further on. Those who are already in Europe are not those in the firing line - and so are not in the greatest need.
IMHO the UK is showing leadership in common sense on this to the rest of the EU.
Germany has been remarkably stupid in its response to the migrant crisis. It has been like fighting an obesity epidemic with an inexhaustible supply of pies. Why should the UK pay to remedy Germany's stupidity? We had enough of that in the Twentieth Century, thank you very much.
Being hard-headed now will save far more heartache further on. Those who are already in Europe are not those in the firing line - and so are not in the greatest need.
IMHO the UK is showing leadership in common sense on this to the rest of the EU.
Well, we've gained a lot of experience when it comes to unplanned mass immigration. Fool me once etc.
Germany has a population economic issue that we don't have btw - it is in Germany's long term interests to take as many migrants as they can. Or so the economists tell me. Our circumstances are different.
That's probably the biggest red herring going.
Germany's population crisis didn't just happen this year it's been around for decades. At any time Germany could have let more people from it's traditional hinterland of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia , Hungary or ex Yugoslavia enter the country. They have long establised communities which will help arrivals and a history of integration
The germans didn't do it. For decades.
This crisis has little to do with do population and much to do with gesture politics.
It baffles me why they didn't open the doors in 2004 like the UK did.
Germany has a population economic issue that we don't have btw - it is in Germany's long term interests to take as many migrants as they can. Or so the economists tell me. Our circumstances are different.
That's probably the biggest red herring going.
Germany's population crisis didn't just happen this year it's been around for decades. At any time Germany could have let more people from it's traditional hinterland of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia , Hungary or ex Yugoslavia enter the country. They have long establised communities which will help arrivals and a history of integration
The germans didn't do it. For decades.
This crisis has little to do with do population and much to do with gesture politics.
It baffles me why they didn't open the doors in 2004 like the UK did.
Indeed, I was working in Germany at the time and the Unions were pretty adamant they didn't want uncontrolled migration pushing down wages in Germany. Ironically some of my German colleagues told me the UK was made opening the doors in the way it did !
However if I can qualify one of my earlier remarks the German population problem has been around for years. Germany has not thrown open the doors for mass migration like the UK, with the exception of post the wall when many ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe could legally claim a passport and resettle.
The Uk and germany have a comaprable percentage of their population born overseas ( about 13% ). But Germany has got there over 30 or 40 years through controlled immigation, the Uk has notched up it's total mostly in the last 10 years.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
I'd just like someone to tell me how many additional immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers we should take in to satisfy their poor, injured consciences. Just give us a number to discuss.
Note that UNCHR estimate around 38 million people were displaced at the end of 2014, and there are around 10 million or so Iraqi/Syrian IDPs, so let's not faff about.
Ms Batmanghelidjh and Mr Yentob, also the BBC's creative director, are due to be questioned on Thursday morning by the House of Commons Public Administration select committee.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Agreed x1000
Problem for the handwringing do-gooders is that they are unwilling to put a number on how many migrants they think we should take. Even if the Tories agreed to take 100k per year it would not be enough for them.
"Ruby and the couple's other dog, border collie Kai, will also be getting some extra treats, Mr and Mrs Slater said."
Just uploaded some photos to the computer [a couple of people asked for another Meg picture, which may be forthcoming in the next few days], and got a few more of my own Kai (also a border collie, albeit with some other breed[s] as well).
O/T - reading D'Ancona in the Evening Standard, where he compares the EU to a gentleman's club and defends scaremongering by BSE, you can forgot any prospect of Cameron/Osborne recommending Leave.
Ok, as I killed the conversation, and am currently being as productive as a meeting of the PLP, here are two pictures of the Meg the dog [assuming I get the coding right]:
Edited extra bit: she likes the camera, probably too much, hence the Wayne's World extreme close-up.
Veering marginally off topic - Isn't the pension triple lock unaffordable in the very long run ?
Probably. I know some on here won't have a bad word said about the Chancellor but there are some uncomfortable facts about our economy. Just watching PMQs and I'm not impressed with the PM bigging up Help to Buy.
O/T - reading D'Ancona in the Evening Standard, where he compares the EU to a gentleman's club and defends scaremongering by BSE, you can forgot any prospect of Cameron/Osborne recommending Leave.
The chances are precisely zero.
Agreed. The renegotiation will be hailed as a stunning success.
Veering marginally off topic - Isn't the pension triple lock unaffordable in the very long run ?
Probably. I know some on here won't have a bad word said about the Chancellor but there are some uncomfortable facts about our economy. Just watching PMQs and I'm not impressed with the PM bigging up Help to Buy.
Well so long as everyone gets a share of the pork, including yours truly I'll be happy enough. But replacing one bit of non productive current expenditure (tax credits) with more pensions seems to be more political than economic .
Will the triple lock still be in place in 32 years time is the big question for me !
He drifted off to Turkey in his opening statement (he seems incapable of avoiding bringing up the region) and then did his dull LBC radio-chat-show host questioning before drifting into miffed, sanctimonious lecturer. Miliband's unkempt dad.
It's a matter of time before one of his e-mails is showed up to be fabricated unless his team are thoroughly checking them. hoho.
How long can it go on before people stop sending him any?
My last should have been a reply to this ... doh!
There will always be tame questions from activists and councillors.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Agreed x1000
Problem for the handwringing do-gooders is that they are unwilling to put a number on how many migrants they think we should take. Even if the Tories agreed to take 100k per year it would not be enough for them.
The thing is though that the Tories have come up with the perfect riposte to this which is to take the refugees directly from the camps whilst making it clear they will not take those arriving under their own steam after dangerous journeys. By doing this they are eliminating that particular pull factor whilst still helping those in need.
The only thing I am surprised by is that the Tories do not make much more of this - emphasising that those encouraging migration by accepting the migrants are guilty of complicity in the deaths of countless more people in the Mediterranean.
Veering marginally off topic - Isn't the pension triple lock unaffordable in the very long run ?
Probably. I know some on here won't have a bad word said about the Chancellor but there are some uncomfortable facts about our economy. Just watching PMQs and I'm not impressed with the PM bigging up Help to Buy.
Well so long as everyone gets a share of the pork, including yours truly I'll be happy enough. But replacing one bit of non productive current expenditure (tax credits) with more pensions seems to be more political than economic .
Will the triple lock still be in place in 32 years time is the big question for me !
I'm a 28 year old civil servant and get annoyed with some who I work(ed) with who have complained about changes to public sector pensions. I can understand people being annoyed about changes being made as they approach retirement, but I'm working on the assumption that there will be no pension waiting for me when/if I get that far.
Ms Batmanghelidjh and Mr Yentob, also the BBC's creative director, are due to be questioned on Thursday morning by the House of Commons Public Administration select committee.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.
Given the rate at which German public opinion is turning, I doubt if Merkel is even carrying her own people with her.
But is that true? CDU/CSU polling seems very stable and only 33% want her to resign.
I think she's playing to some need for national atonement deep in the German pschy.
55% of Germans want to take fewer asylum seekers, according to Yougov. That 33% will only rise.
The people who do seem to have some need for national atonement, for some reason, are the Swedes.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Agreed x1000
Problem for the handwringing do-gooders is that they are unwilling to put a number on how many migrants they think we should take. Even if the Tories agreed to take 100k per year it would not be enough for them.
The thing is though that the Tories have come up with the perfect riposte to this which is to take the refugees directly from the camps whilst making it clear they will not take those arriving under their own steam after dangerous journeys. By doing this they are eliminating that particular pull factor whilst still helping those in need.
The only thing I am surprised by is that the Tories do not make much more of this - emphasising that those encouraging migration by accepting the migrants are guilty of complicity in the deaths of countless more people in the Mediterranean.
Not just the Mediterranean. You encourage people to move into war zones in North Africa and the Middle East.
O/T - reading D'Ancona in the Evening Standard, where he compares the EU to a gentleman's club and defends scaremongering by BSE, you can forgot any prospect of Cameron/Osborne recommending Leave.
It's interesting that one of David Cameron's supporters says he wants to stay in the EU because he likes being in clubs. It's not doing his side any favours.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.
Given the rate at which German public opinion is turning, I doubt if Merkel is even carrying her own people with her.
But is that true? CDU/CSU polling seems very stable and only 33% want her to resign.
I think she's playing to some need for national atonement deep in the German pschy.
55% of Germans want to take fewer asylum seekers, according to Yougov. That 33% will only rise.
The people who do seem to have some need for national atonement, for some reason, are the Swedes.
Yes, but they're only voters, who gives a crap what Germans actually want?
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
The issue is that, without preventing more people arriving, taking those on the border just creates a pull factor.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Agreed x1000
Problem for the handwringing do-gooders is that they are unwilling to put a number on how many migrants they think we should take. Even if the Tories agreed to take 100k per year it would not be enough for them.
The thing is though that the Tories have come up with the perfect riposte to this which is to take the refugees directly from the camps whilst making it clear they will not take those arriving under their own steam after dangerous journeys. By doing this they are eliminating that particular pull factor whilst still helping those in need.
The only thing I am surprised by is that the Tories do not make much more of this - emphasising that those encouraging migration by accepting the migrants are guilty of complicity in the deaths of countless more people in the Mediterranean.
Not just the Mediterranean. You encourage people to move into war zones in North Africa and the Middle East.
If it winds up kippers that is good enough reason for people it won't affect to be in favour of it
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
Just where exactly would you shelter and house them? Which "camps"? Bear in mind these people are already in the EU.
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey...
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
Just where exactly would you shelter and house them? Which "camps"? Bear in mind these people are already in the EU.
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
Just where exactly would you shelter and house them? Which "camps"? Bear in mind these people are already in the EU.
Camps around the Syrian borders. We should fund them properly so they are a lot more with adequate living conditions. Also, it is a way to help those who are genuinely impoverished and desperate families, rather than disproportionately focusing on the middle income young single men that make up most of the migrants in the EU.
thick as shite Labour rep Richard Burgon mp on C4 News. Never been in city of London business........ Renowned flatulist.
@cathynewman: What will the deficit be 2015? @RichardBurgon: "I'm not an economic...erm...I'm not someone who's going to put a figure in a crystal ball."
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
Just where exactly would you shelter and house them? Which "camps"? Bear in mind these people are already in the EU.
A bus can drive to Turkey from Hungary...
And the Turks can refuse to accept the return leg. Given how many refugees they are already looking after, who could blame them?
This morning's Yougov poll for Prospect finds 82% of Conservative and UKIP supporters oppose taking any more asylum seekers from Syria. 52% of Labour, Lib Dem, and Others (mostly left wing parties) are in favour.
It seems to me that on the EU, overall, about 60% of the former want to Leave and 70% of the latter wish to remain.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
That idiotic Labour economic advisor on Sky could not really find any circumstances where expenditure could be cut.
@faisalislam: Osborne asks @CarolineLucas "when do you stop borrowing?"...she says "you stop borrowing when you cant afford to pay it back". Tory laughter
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
They need to be sheltered and housed in a way that doesn't cause even more to make the dangerous journey. i.e. in the camps. By paying for that to happen, we are alleviating the symptoms. Just in a sensible way.
Just where exactly would you shelter and house them?
@MrJacHart: George Osborne is totally steamrolling the Labour Party tonight on the #FiscalCharter - an incredible impressive operator in the House #HoC
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
(not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Germany's fault, Germany's mess and Germany's problem. Let them clear it up.
Frankly, I don't care if it makes us unpopular. I don't blame people for their problems or mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them.
That's how we learn.
Richard Attenborough in Jurastic Park (original and best):
"I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them."
Judging by that Prospect poll, people essentially see Corbyn as another Miliband. They see him as far less competent than Cameron, but at the same time, more in touch with "people like you", more trustworthy, and less closed-minded and willing to listen to others' opinions.
Obviously being seen as equivalent to the leader who just lost an election is not by any means great, but should give pause for thought to those who think the Tories are guaranteed for some landslide in 2020.
Comments
I'd have a lot more respect for those on the Left if they introduced this objective into their migration policy. But they never do - except for the honorable exception of Nick Cohen.
You can't signal how virtuous you are by saying the ideal solution is that they never have to leave. In fact, if they even think about it at all, they probably feel you risk doing the opposite.
BUT. The migrants have arrived. There seems to be a collective amnesia that large numbers of migrants had arrived long before Angela Merkel gave her invitation for them to throng to Germany (indeed, she was prompted by this). Those migrants need to be sheltered and housed. Part of what needs doing is the sheltering and housing - the treating of the symptoms. That treating of the symptoms will have real benefit for real people. Whatever you might think of Angela Merkel's actions, there are another 26 member states in the EU who also didn't issue that invitation, many of whom also are struggling with the sheer weight of numbers.
We should play a part in treating the symptoms too. Standing idly by is shameful.
If you want that to stop, stop doing it.
Incidentally, FPT, I agree entirely with your comments on Boris Johnson. I won't vote for him.
I think she's playing to some need for national atonement deep in the German pschy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-3239347/Refugees-welcome-Age-Stupid-Yvette-Cooper-s-pledge-migrant-family-proof-noisy-emotion-replaced-quiet-intelligence-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html
Will self confessed 'moron' Ma Beckett be in that one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-3239347/Refugees-welcome-Age-Stupid-Yvette-Cooper-s-pledge-migrant-family-proof-noisy-emotion-replaced-quiet-intelligence-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html
Nah, that's just Littlejohn writes anti-Labour article shocker !
Because it was utter cant. If it was all helpless young women with children, who wouldnt want to help? Would she be so keen on a seventeen year old male for Eritrea ?
Being hard-headed now will save far more heartache further on. Those who are already in Europe are not those in the firing line - and so are not in the greatest need.
Our circumstances are different.
1) open the doors of our own homes to migrants; and
2) ensure that those migrants that cross our threshold are of sufficiently poor character and background
before we're allowed to comment on the subject at all?
Have I missed anything out here?
Frankly, I'm surprised Cameron has been so robust and firm on this. Pleasantly surprised and pleased, but surprised nonetheless.
Germany's population crisis didn't just happen this year it's been around for decades. At any time Germany could have let more people from it's traditional hinterland of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia , Hungary or ex Yugoslavia enter the country. They have long establised communities which will help arrivals and a history of integration
The germans didn't do it. For decades.
This crisis has little to do with do population and much to do with gesture politics.
However if I can qualify one of my earlier remarks the German population problem has been around for years. Germany has not thrown open the doors for mass migration like the UK, with the exception of post the wall when many ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe could legally claim a passport and resettle.
The Uk and germany have a comaprable percentage of their population born overseas ( about 13% ). But Germany has got there over 30 or 40 years through controlled immigation, the Uk has notched up it's total mostly in the last 10 years.
To put it bluntly: more people will die if you encourage more to make the journey.
Note that UNCHR estimate around 38 million people were displaced at the end of 2014, and there are around 10 million or so Iraqi/Syrian IDPs, so let's not faff about.
Ms Batmanghelidjh and Mr Yentob, also the BBC's creative director, are due to be questioned on Thursday morning by the House of Commons Public Administration select committee.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34508149
Problem for the handwringing do-gooders is that they are unwilling to put a number on how many migrants they think we should take. Even if the Tories agreed to take 100k per year it would not be enough for them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34529519
"Ruby and the couple's other dog, border collie Kai, will also be getting some extra treats, Mr and Mrs Slater said."
Just uploaded some photos to the computer [a couple of people asked for another Meg picture, which may be forthcoming in the next few days], and got a few more of my own Kai (also a border collie, albeit with some other breed[s] as well).
The chances are precisely zero.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-eu-has-flaws-but-cameron-knows-he-must-stay-in-the-club-a3090461.html
Edited extra bit: she likes the camera, probably too much, hence the Wayne's World extreme close-up.
Not surprised, but also not impressed.
Mr. Pulpstar, hard to reverse, given that pensioners actually bother to vote.
Will the triple lock still be in place in 32 years time is the big question for me !
There will always be tame questions from activists and councillors.
The question will therefore be: is the public more scared of national economic decline or of unchecked EU immigration?
If OUT can convince people that it would be business as usual, I reckon they might win.
The only thing I am surprised by is that the Tories do not make much more of this - emphasising that those encouraging migration by accepting the migrants are guilty of complicity in the deaths of countless more people in the Mediterranean.
I hope that Cameron is magnanimous enough to offer asylum to any distressed Labour MPs.
The people who do seem to have some need for national atonement, for some reason, are the Swedes.
GO looking / sounding quite impressive
That Richard Murphy on Sky news was a complete muppet.
This morning's Yougov poll for Prospect finds 82% of Conservative and UKIP supporters oppose taking any more asylum seekers from Syria. 52% of Labour, Lib Dem, and Others (mostly left wing parties) are in favour.
It seems to me that on the EU, overall, about 60% of the former want to Leave and 70% of the latter wish to remain.
He got suspended. Fancy that!!
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Who is most in tune with the best British values?
Jeremy Corbyn: 30%
David Cameron: 29%
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/y7lh6n7zyh/ProspectResults_151001_W.pdf
"I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them."
Obviously being seen as equivalent to the leader who just lost an election is not by any means great, but should give pause for thought to those who think the Tories are guaranteed for some landslide in 2020.