Yes and most of those 41% of Tory voters want Boris to stay as PM as the header shows. It does not matter if the 33% of Labour voters or 8% of LDs and 7% of Greens prefer Rishi as barely any of them will vote Tory anyway even if Rishi becomes leader
Do you mean, young HY, that the Conservative Party has now officially given up any hope it had of winning over Lib Dem and Labour voters?
So the current percentage of Conservative support is now at its zenith and from here it can only go down?
I think a Labour/LD Government would be very good and bring some normality back to politics. Maybe then BoJo would go and the Tories could go back to being sensible
Right now: 116,722 cases/day 7 days ago: 90,576 cases/day 14 days ago: 61,306 cases/day 21 days ago: 37,056 cases/day 28 days ago: 23,910 cases/day 35 days ago: 13,611 cases/day
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
I look forwards to Rishi, Sajid or Kwasi being the next PM just so that Labour embarrass themselves by calling them race traitors (phrased differently, of course). There is a special kind of hatred from Labour reserved for Black and Asian people who have the temerity to not vote Labour. I expect them to make complete fools of themselves when the Tory party makes one of those three the PM.
Tell me about it.
It's bizarre the extreme right and the left seem obsessed about skin colour.
I remember being told that I didn't count as an ethnic minority because I was private educated, had a decent job, and voted Tory, apparently you have to vote Labour or struggled to be an ethnic minority.
Remember Corbyn said only Labour could unlock yours and my potential?
Anyhoo like Richard Nabavi I've got tasty odds on Kemi Badenoch from a while back, she's good on the comms front.
Be pretty funny if the Tory party elected a black leader whose surname was BAD ENOCH.
I look forwards to Rishi, Sajid or Kwasi being the next PM just so that Labour embarrass themselves by calling them race traitors (phrased differently, of course). There is a special kind of hatred from Labour reserved for Black and Asian people who have the temerity to not vote Labour. I expect them to make complete fools of themselves when the Tory party makes one of those three the PM.
Tell me about it.
It's bizarre the extreme right and the left seem obsessed about skin colour.
I remember being told that I didn't count as an ethnic minority because I was private educated, had a decent job, and voted Tory, apparently you have to vote Labour or struggled to be an ethnic minority.
Remember Corbyn said only Labour could unlock yours and my potential?
Anyhoo like Richard Nabavi I've got tasty odds on Kemi Badenoch from a while back, she's good on the comms front.
Be pretty funny if the Tory party elected a black leader whose surname was BAD ENOCH.
Talk about the whip hand...
I can already hear the chorus of execration...
I'd laugh so much if the Tory party elected their third female leader before Labour had elected their first one, and the third was from an ethnic minority.
Yes and most of those 41% of Tory voters want Boris to stay as PM as the header shows. It does not matter if the 33% of Labour voters or 8% of LDs and 7% of Greens prefer Rishi as barely any of them will vote Tory anyway even if Rishi becomes leader
Do you mean, young HY, that the Conservative Party has now officially given up any hope it had of winning over Lib Dem and Labour voters?
So the current percentage of Conservative support is now at its zenith and from here it can only go down?
Fair enough.
He said yesterday here that the Scots don't matter to his party - full stop, ie. including, say, SCUP voters, infants, children, dements, and LDs, as well as SNP voters. Which won't help the above phenomenon.
I think a Labour/LD Government would be very good and bring some normality back to politics. Maybe then BoJo would go and the Tories could go back to being sensible
It wouldn't because that coalition would necessarily need SNP support and maybe even Plaid Cymru. Labour would struggle to hold that coalition together as the Lib Dems would be the second biggest governing party in England and would want to ensure they don't have a repeat of 2015, the SNP would be the biggest governing party in Scotland and would insist on having little to no Labour say on anything that happened there and screwing more money out of England and Wales for their vote bribes. That leaves Labour without a majority in England struggling to get a legislative agenda through for England.
Labour needs to put the Tories back into a minority government if it can't form a government without the SNP. I think that Labour would be finished as an electoral force in England if they get into bed with the SNP.
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
It is term that David Cameron was alleged to have used and has stuck amongst some Tories.
I look forwards to Rishi, Sajid or Kwasi being the next PM just so that Labour embarrass themselves by calling them race traitors (phrased differently, of course). There is a special kind of hatred from Labour reserved for Black and Asian people who have the temerity to not vote Labour. I expect them to make complete fools of themselves when the Tory party makes one of those three the PM.
Tell me about it.
It's bizarre the extreme right and the left seem obsessed about skin colour.
I remember being told that I didn't count as an ethnic minority because I was private educated, had a decent job, and voted Tory, apparently you have to vote Labour or struggled to be an ethnic minority.
Remember Corbyn said only Labour could unlock yours and my potential?
Anyhoo like Richard Nabavi I've got tasty odds on Kemi Badenoch from a while back, she's good on the comms front.
Be pretty funny if the Tory party elected a black leader whose surname was BAD ENOCH.
Talk about the whip hand...
I can already hear the chorus of execration...
I'd laugh so much if the Tory party elected their third female leader before Labour had elected their first one, and the third was from an ethnic minority.
Labour's first ethnic minority leader will be a white man.
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
It is term that David Cameron was alleged to have used and has stuck amongst some Tories.
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
It is term that David Cameron was alleged to have used and has stuck amongst some Tories.
Clearly we need remedial cookery courses for ex-MPs.
Cyclefree kindly advised me on cooking pasta, and another friend has explained how to make an omelette. So sometimes I go wild with those.
I hope it was the right sort of omelette. There are more ways of making omelettes than pawns on a chessboard.
Delia ("One is Fun") is particularly keen on souffle omelettes, where you whip the eggs and finish it off under a grill to make it fluffy with a crust.
Something that has bugged me for sometime is the fact that Boris supposedly wrote two articles one pro one anti Brexit to decide where he stood. Logically that means he didn't have a firm definite view at that stage. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as someone who tends to have strong views there are occasions when I am not sure on something and when I'm not sure I may form a view, but I may also be swayed, so the last thing I do is go out campaigning for my current position. Instead I listen to the arguments and play devils advocate.
I suspect May was in this position re her Remain position.
It does not come over as honest, but more opportunistic that Boris then took the position he did (Ditto I think for Gove).
Is not another interpretation that he was waiting for the result (or some crucial vote within the Party) and then publish the corresponding article? Leading from the back, so to speak.
I can't remember the context of the dual articles, so this may be quite implausible on the logic of the situation.
I can't remember all the details either, but as he was a leader of the leave campaign this must have been before that obviously.
When one writes a pro and con list for yourself it is because you don't know what to do, or you think you do but want to convince yourself. It is implausible that you are so muddled that you have no idea beforehand and after doing it you are so convinced by the argument that you want to lead the campaign.
This argument is either bollocks or your mind is just made up of a spaghetti of thoughts (which with Boris is always possible).
Sorry but that's not reasonable.
Many people I know write pro and con lists and once they've settled on a position go hell to leather for it. I don't think the fact that he thought through both sides of the argument first is a reason for criticism - and I wouldn't if he'd landed on the other side either.
As it happens I was in a similar position. I started off on the Remain side and I was torn in the referendum. I literally ended up writing a pro and con list myself too for the three options I foresaw (hard leave, EEA and Remain - this is before EEA was ruled out by Boris and Gove during the campaign) and doing so helped switch me from Remain to Leave.
Does the fact I considered both sides of the debate somehow devalue my opinion in your eyes? Does it devalue my vote?
People who rush headlong without considering both sides because they've predetermined their decision and can't be swayed no matter the argument are not worthy of more respect.
There is a big difference between you and Boris. What you did was completely rational. You considered both sides and went out to vote accordingly.
There is a big difference between that and becoming a leader of the campaign. I know of nobody who is undecided about a political issue who on making a decision which way to jump then goes hell for leather on campaigning for it. Nobody does. They do it reluctantly as the best option in their opinion.
If you are talking about a decision where on making that decision there is a fork in the road at that point then of course you go hell for leather for it eg changing jobs, buying a house etc. You maybe in doubt but once decided you work hard to make it work, BUT that wasn't that type of decision. The decision was whether to argue for it, not whether to do it. That is very different.
A normal person would do the pros and cons and vote accordingly.
I don't agree, he's a leading politician so leading in politics is literally his day job.
The same is the case for many people's jobs. I don't know what sector you work in but personally in my day job I've had to weigh up pros and cons as to whether to do a project or not - and then once deciding to proceed with the project you then go hell for leather to make sure the project is a success.
If people only led projects they hadn't weighed up the pros and cons for first, then that would not be an improvement to almost any walk of life.
You are mixing up two different things. There is a big difference between making the decision and then the implementation. Once decided you go hell for leather, but frankly anyone who argues forcefully for something they actually are not sure of is being dishonest.
So if I was in a meeting where I wasn't sure on the decision to be made I would listen and question and then make up my mind. I wouldn't argue for something I wasn't sure about. That is what Boris claims to have done.
Once decided I would back whatever decision was made with a commitment to carry it out.
I completely disagree. Anyone who argues forcefully having weighed up the pros and cons, and decides pros outweigh cons, is intellectually honest.
Anyone who argues forcefully having NOT bothered to weigh up the pros and cons first is intellectually naive at best.
You're conflating weighing up the pros and cons with being uncertain after you've done so.
The issue isn’t so much weighing up the pros and cons as with having no principles or beliefs with the sole decision criterion being career self interest.
That's an allegation, but without evidence.
All that is known is he wrote a pros and cons list in advance.
Having uncertainty before you do a pros and cons list is not the same as having uncertainty after you do it.
Mr. Eagles, maybe one day you'll be as green as me.
But it's unlikely.
I'm thinking about buying a lime green suit, for my trip to Belfast next year.
I knew a Dutch chap who tried a lime green suit. With a kipper tie... and brown shoes...
When I say "kipper tie" I mean a tie with a picture of kipper on it.....
EDIT: Thinking of Belfast, some other Dutch chaps I knew walked into an Irish pub in London, On St Paddy's Day. Wearing Oranje shirts - since Oranje had been playing that day.....
By the grace of God I happened to be there at the time.....
Right now: 116,722 cases/day 7 days ago: 90,576 cases/day 14 days ago: 61,306 cases/day 21 days ago: 37,056 cases/day 28 days ago: 23,910 cases/day 35 days ago: 13,611 cases/day
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
It is term that David Cameron was alleged to have used and has stuck amongst some Tories.
FWIW I try to be green, I'm trying to atone for all the one man global warming machines I drove for most of my adult life.
A few years earlier Dave was all in favour of Vote Blue, Go Green.
Cameron is a PR man. Big difference between the message he wants to sell and what he actually thinks.
See also Greensill and his warnings about a future lobbying scandal.
One of the advantages for Johnson of the buffoonery is that people don't think he's that capable of keeping up an elaborate deception for a long time. They reckon he's bought to put his foot in it. So it makes him seem a bit more trustworthy.
'Simmer' is lesson 2. Especially as it is so easily confused with a biscuit. "What do I do now - put the butter biscuit in the ****ing soup? Aye right."
It's getting too complicated already...
I consider myself a decent cook and have indeed been paid to do so, but I have no idea how simmer is confused with a bisuit? Is this a regional thing?
National thing. A make of Abernethy-type biscuit produced by Simmers in Edinburgh.
I look forwards to Rishi, Sajid or Kwasi being the next PM just so that Labour embarrass themselves by calling them race traitors (phrased differently, of course). There is a special kind of hatred from Labour reserved for Black and Asian people who have the temerity to not vote Labour. I expect them to make complete fools of themselves when the Tory party makes one of those three the PM.
Tell me about it.
It's bizarre the extreme right and the left seem obsessed about skin colour.
I remember being told that I didn't count as an ethnic minority because I was private educated, had a decent job, and voted Tory, apparently you have to vote Labour or struggled to be an ethnic minority.
Remember Corbyn said only Labour could unlock yours and my potential?
Anyhoo like Richard Nabavi I've got tasty odds on Kemi Badenoch from a while back, she's good on the comms front.
Be pretty funny if the Tory party elected a black leader whose surname was BAD ENOCH.
Talk about the whip hand...
I can already hear the chorus of execration...
I'd laugh so much if the Tory party elected their third female leader before Labour had elected their first one, and the third was from an ethnic minority.
Mr. Eagles, maybe one day you'll be as green as me.
But it's unlikely.
I'm thinking about buying a lime green suit, for my trip to Belfast next year.
I knew a Dutch chap who tried a lime green suit. With a kipper tie... and brown shoes...
When I say "kipper tie" I mean a tie with a picture of kipper on it.....
EDIT: Thinking of Belfast, some other Dutch chaps I knew walked into an Irish pub in London, On St Paddy's Day. Wearing Oranje shirts - since Oranje had been playing that day.....
By the grace of God I happened to be there at the time.....
I thought a "kipper tie" was a beverage, like coffee. (I come from near Birmingham)
Mr. Eagles, maybe one day you'll be as green as me.
But it's unlikely.
I'm thinking about buying a lime green suit, for my trip to Belfast next year.
I knew a Dutch chap who tried a lime green suit. With a kipper tie... and brown shoes...
When I say "kipper tie" I mean a tie with a picture of kipper on it.....
EDIT: Thinking of Belfast, some other Dutch chaps I knew walked into an Irish pub in London, On St Paddy's Day. Wearing Oranje shirts - since Oranje had been playing that day.....
By the grace of God I happened to be there at the time.....
I thought a "kipper tie" was a beverage, like coffee.
Mr. Eagles, maybe one day you'll be as green as me.
But it's unlikely.
I'm thinking about buying a lime green suit, for my trip to Belfast next year.
I knew a Dutch chap who tried a lime green suit. With a kipper tie... and brown shoes...
When I say "kipper tie" I mean a tie with a picture of kipper on it.....
EDIT: Thinking of Belfast, some other Dutch chaps I knew walked into an Irish pub in London, On St Paddy's Day. Wearing Oranje shirts - since Oranje had been playing that day.....
By the grace of God I happened to be there at the time.....
I thought a "kipper tie" was a beverage, like coffee. (I come from near Birmingham)
At the company, the universal verdict was that wearing sunglasses to reduce the horror (of the lime green suit etc) was a sensible reaction.....
‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.
A+ for whataboutery and squirrel spotting. Impressive even by PB standards.
The place to deny allegations of criminal “incidents” against a teenager is in a court of law, not in the media.
Rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault and sex abuse are illegal. If the person is 7, 17, 27 or 87, it is illegal. These are very serious criminal acts. If it also transpires that the victim was underage in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, that will increase the sentence.
Incidentally, the man in a powerful position in Scotland actually faced the allegations in a court of law, and was cleared on all counts:
Agreed. The alleged crimes are terrible. It was your insinuation about specifically English courts.
What do you mean “insinuation”?
One of the alleged crimes took place in London. If her case had ever got to court it would have been tried under English law, in an English court, led by a member of the English judiciary. The N Ireland and Scottish legal systems lack jurisdiction to try a criminal case alleged to have taken place in England.
Failures in this case lie fairly and squarely with England’s law enforcement and legal system. Don’t blame the rest of us.
It's worth noting that, AFAIU, the claim is a civil claim not a criminal case brought by the authorities.
I am on Jess to be next Lab Leader (only 20s bf) really because I agree with @isam that she is strident enough to face down BoJo and not play fair/fight fire with fire vs our beloved PM and also because she seems eminently sensible and is disliked within the party by all the people I dislike.
Pluls, critically for me, and for any LotO for that matter, I can't see Jess voting with the government time after time as per SKS has done. She would I'm sure and I hope rather chew her own arm off than walk through the same lobby as JRM et al.
On topic, I'm still a member of a few Tory activist/constituency groups, have to say there's been a definite swing against the PM in recent chats (and Priti Patel.)
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Green crap in your view, or the members' view? Just to be sure; it's an interesting comment.
It is term that David Cameron was alleged to have used and has stuck amongst some Tories.
I am on Jess to be next Lab Leader (only 20s bf) really because I agree with @isam that she is strident enough to face down BoJo and not play fair/fight fire with fire vs our beloved PM and also because she seems eminently sensible and is disliked within the party by all the people I dislike.
Pluls, critically for me, and for any LotO for that matter, I can't see Jess voting with the government time after time as per SKS has done. She would I'm sure and I hope rather chew her own arm off than walk through the same lobby as JRM et al.
Of course Starmer was the one who got Corbyn to go through the lobbies with JRM et al, so there's nothing new because of the pandemic about him doing that.
About 20 minutes ago, I placed the maximum bet (£6.25!) Ladbrokes would give me on Kemi Badenoch as next Conservative leader, at 50/1. Now 25/1, although you might still be able to get 50/1 elsewhere.
Honestly no. Not going to happen. The core Tory party membership is too right-wing, too subconciously bigoted for that to happen imo.
I was a member for years, and I think you are very wrong on that.
I may be - I hope I am tbh. But I think the key word in your post is 'was'.
What you have to remember is that, even if there is subconscious bigotry (something by definition unknowable), the party has a long record of making choices which seem to go against the stereotype (plus some which were bang on it, of course!) First Jewish PM. First woman PM. Second woman PM. First Muslim holder of one of the three great offices of state. First Hindu holder of one of the three great offices of state. Second Hindu holder of one of the three great offices of state. First Muslim woman minister to speak from the House of Commons despatch box [Who was that? No Googling!]
What I think happens here is that the party particularly likes 'outsider' politicians who express or embody its values, perhaps as a rebuff to the accusation that they are bigoted. And that is why I think Kemi Badenoch is one to watch. She also seems to be very good at self-promotion.
I hope you are right... but none of those firsts were voted for by the party membership.
Something that has bugged me for sometime is the fact that Boris supposedly wrote two articles one pro one anti Brexit to decide where he stood. Logically that means he didn't have a firm definite view at that stage. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as someone who tends to have strong views there are occasions when I am not sure on something and when I'm not sure I may form a view, but I may also be swayed, so the last thing I do is go out campaigning for my current position. Instead I listen to the arguments and play devils advocate.
I suspect May was in this position re her Remain position.
It does not come over as honest, but more opportunistic that Boris then took the position he did (Ditto I think for Gove).
Is not another interpretation that he was waiting for the result (or some crucial vote within the Party) and then publish the corresponding article? Leading from the back, so to speak.
I can't remember the context of the dual articles, so this may be quite implausible on the logic of the situation.
I can't remember all the details either, but as he was a leader of the leave campaign this must have been before that obviously.
When one writes a pro and con list for yourself it is because you don't know what to do, or you think you do but want to convince yourself. It is implausible that you are so muddled that you have no idea beforehand and after doing it you are so convinced by the argument that you want to lead the campaign.
This argument is either bollocks or your mind is just made up of a spaghetti of thoughts (which with Boris is always possible).
Sorry but that's not reasonable.
Many people I know write pro and con lists and once they've settled on a position go hell to leather for it. I don't think the fact that he thought through both sides of the argument first is a reason for criticism - and I wouldn't if he'd landed on the other side either.
As it happens I was in a similar position. I started off on the Remain side and I was torn in the referendum. I literally ended up writing a pro and con list myself too for the three options I foresaw (hard leave, EEA and Remain - this is before EEA was ruled out by Boris and Gove during the campaign) and doing so helped switch me from Remain to Leave.
Does the fact I considered both sides of the debate somehow devalue my opinion in your eyes? Does it devalue my vote?
People who rush headlong without considering both sides because they've predetermined their decision and can't be swayed no matter the argument are not worthy of more respect.
There is a big difference between you and Boris. What you did was completely rational. You considered both sides and went out to vote accordingly.
There is a big difference between that and becoming a leader of the campaign. I know of nobody who is undecided about a political issue who on making a decision which way to jump then goes hell for leather on campaigning for it. Nobody does. They do it reluctantly as the best option in their opinion.
If you are talking about a decision where on making that decision there is a fork in the road at that point then of course you go hell for leather for it eg changing jobs, buying a house etc. You maybe in doubt but once decided you work hard to make it work, BUT that wasn't that type of decision. The decision was whether to argue for it, not whether to do it. That is very different.
A normal person would do the pros and cons and vote accordingly.
I don't agree, he's a leading politician so leading in politics is literally his day job.
The same is the case for many people's jobs. I don't know what sector you work in but personally in my day job I've had to weigh up pros and cons as to whether to do a project or not - and then once deciding to proceed with the project you then go hell for leather to make sure the project is a success.
If people only led projects they hadn't weighed up the pros and cons for first, then that would not be an improvement to almost any walk of life.
You are mixing up two different things. There is a big difference between making the decision and then the implementation. Once decided you go hell for leather, but frankly anyone who argues forcefully for something they actually are not sure of is being dishonest.
So if I was in a meeting where I wasn't sure on the decision to be made I would listen and question and then make up my mind. I wouldn't argue for something I wasn't sure about. That is what Boris claims to have done.
Once decided I would back whatever decision was made with a commitment to carry it out.
I completely disagree. Anyone who argues forcefully having weighed up the pros and cons, and decides pros outweigh cons, is intellectually honest.
Anyone who argues forcefully having NOT bothered to weigh up the pros and cons first is intellectually naive at best.
You're conflating weighing up the pros and cons with being uncertain after you've done so.
The issue isn’t so much weighing up the pros and cons as with having no principles or beliefs with the sole decision criterion being career self interest.
That's an allegation, but without evidence.
All that is known is he wrote a pros and cons list in advance.
Having uncertainty before you do a pros and cons list is not the same as having uncertainty after you do it.
Boris Johnson's Brexit cost-benefit analysis.
Costs:
Less trade with EU (-1 point) Less manufacturing (-1 point) Less influence in the world (-1 point) Less tax income through labour shortages (-1 point) Less GDP (-1 point) More red tape costs (-1 point) Costs to the NHS (-1 point) Costs to farming (-1 point) Costs to fishing Industry (-1 point) Cost to financial services industry. (-1 point) Compromises GFA (-1 point) Reduction in free movement for Briton's in Europe (-1 point) More hassle for holidaying in the EU. (-1 point) Roaming charges (-1 point) Etc. etc (-1 point)
Benefits:
Less free movement for EU citizens. (+1 point) An intangible called "sovereignty." (+1 point) Boris Johnson increases his propensity to become PM. (+1,000,000 points)
So by the crucial measure of "Boris Johnson increases his propensity to become PM", benefits clearly outweigh costs.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
It's clear that the smugglers are going through the same playbook they used in the Med.
So they have moved from running the boats themselves to piling them full of people and letting one of them steer. At least that is what this gentlemen says...
The next step from the Med playbook will be casting boats adrift, outside the French territorial limit, with a dead/no engine and calling the...... RNLI....
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
About 20 minutes ago, I placed the maximum bet (£6.25!) Ladbrokes would give me on Kemi Badenoch as next Conservative leader, at 50/1. Now 25/1, although you might still be able to get 50/1 elsewhere.
Honestly no. Not going to happen. The core Tory party membership is too right-wing, too subconciously bigoted for that to happen imo.
I was a member for years, and I think you are very wrong on that.
I may be - I hope I am tbh. But I think the key word in your post is 'was'.
What you have to remember is that, even if there is subconscious bigotry (something by definition unknowable), the party has a long record of making choices which seem to go against the stereotype (plus some which were bang on it, of course!) First Jewish PM. First woman PM. Second woman PM. First Muslim holder of one of the three great offices of state. First Hindu holder of one of the three great offices of state. Second Hindu holder of one of the three great offices of state. First Muslim woman minister to speak from the House of Commons despatch box [Who was that? No Googling!]
What I think happens here is that the party particularly likes 'outsider' politicians who express or embody its values, perhaps as a rebuff to the accusation that they are bigoted. And that is why I think Kemi Badenoch is one to watch. She also seems to be very good at self-promotion.
I hope you are right... but none of those firsts were voted for by the party membership.
True, conversely the party membership has not shown a strong aversion to any of them and, in some cases, they are / have been devoted to the relevant individuals.
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 Replying to @Dominic2306 This [elite] network is making climate their new thing - they will screw that up as badly as they handled Brexit, Trump, terrorism, crime etc. If you want serious action on the environment, it's VITAL these deluded Left networks don't dominate or they'll provoke massive counter-campaign
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Thank you for the offer and the kind thought, but alas, I am teaching then and I don’t see how I could count it as CPD to get cover.
Which is a shame as I would like to ask (a) how she fucked up exams so imposingly (b) why she was appointed Head of OFSTED despite having no relevant qualifications or experience without the role even being advertised and (c) why she continues to hold the role despite being a clear safeguarding risk.
I’d probably be kicked out after question 1, of course.
Well I might listen in. I am a trustee of a primary school after all.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
To be fair to the healthy young man, he has had to put up with living in France.
Thank you for the offer and the kind thought, but alas, I am teaching then and I don’t see how I could count it as CPD to get cover.
Which is a shame as I would like to ask (a) how she fucked up exams so imposingly (b) why she was appointed Head of OFSTED despite having no relevant qualifications or experience without the role even being advertised and (c) why she continues to hold the role despite being a clear safeguarding risk.
I’d probably be kicked out after question 1, of course.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Thank you for the offer and the kind thought, but alas, I am teaching then and I don’t see how I could count it as CPD to get cover.
Which is a shame as I would like to ask (a) how she fucked up exams so imposingly (b) why she was appointed Head of OFSTED despite having no relevant qualifications or experience without the role even being advertised and (c) why she continues to hold the role despite being a clear safeguarding risk.
I’d probably be kicked out after question 1, of course.
Something that has bugged me for sometime is the fact that Boris supposedly wrote two articles one pro one anti Brexit to decide where he stood. Logically that means he didn't have a firm definite view at that stage. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as someone who tends to have strong views there are occasions when I am not sure on something and when I'm not sure I may form a view, but I may also be swayed, so the last thing I do is go out campaigning for my current position. Instead I listen to the arguments and play devils advocate.
I suspect May was in this position re her Remain position.
It does not come over as honest, but more opportunistic that Boris then took the position he did (Ditto I think for Gove).
Is not another interpretation that he was waiting for the result (or some crucial vote within the Party) and then publish the corresponding article? Leading from the back, so to speak.
I can't remember the context of the dual articles, so this may be quite implausible on the logic of the situation.
I can't remember all the details either, but as he was a leader of the leave campaign this must have been before that obviously.
When one writes a pro and con list for yourself it is because you don't know what to do, or you think you do but want to convince yourself. It is implausible that you are so muddled that you have no idea beforehand and after doing it you are so convinced by the argument that you want to lead the campaign.
This argument is either bollocks or your mind is just made up of a spaghetti of thoughts (which with Boris is always possible).
Sorry but that's not reasonable.
Many people I know write pro and con lists and once they've settled on a position go hell to leather for it. I don't think the fact that he thought through both sides of the argument first is a reason for criticism - and I wouldn't if he'd landed on the other side either.
As it happens I was in a similar position. I started off on the Remain side and I was torn in the referendum. I literally ended up writing a pro and con list myself too for the three options I foresaw (hard leave, EEA and Remain - this is before EEA was ruled out by Boris and Gove during the campaign) and doing so helped switch me from Remain to Leave.
Does the fact I considered both sides of the debate somehow devalue my opinion in your eyes? Does it devalue my vote?
People who rush headlong without considering both sides because they've predetermined their decision and can't be swayed no matter the argument are not worthy of more respect.
There is a big difference between you and Boris. What you did was completely rational. You considered both sides and went out to vote accordingly.
There is a big difference between that and becoming a leader of the campaign. I know of nobody who is undecided about a political issue who on making a decision which way to jump then goes hell for leather on campaigning for it. Nobody does. They do it reluctantly as the best option in their opinion.
If you are talking about a decision where on making that decision there is a fork in the road at that point then of course you go hell for leather for it eg changing jobs, buying a house etc. You maybe in doubt but once decided you work hard to make it work, BUT that wasn't that type of decision. The decision was whether to argue for it, not whether to do it. That is very different.
A normal person would do the pros and cons and vote accordingly.
I don't agree, he's a leading politician so leading in politics is literally his day job.
The same is the case for many people's jobs. I don't know what sector you work in but personally in my day job I've had to weigh up pros and cons as to whether to do a project or not - and then once deciding to proceed with the project you then go hell for leather to make sure the project is a success.
If people only led projects they hadn't weighed up the pros and cons for first, then that would not be an improvement to almost any walk of life.
You are mixing up two different things. There is a big difference between making the decision and then the implementation. Once decided you go hell for leather, but frankly anyone who argues forcefully for something they actually are not sure of is being dishonest.
So if I was in a meeting where I wasn't sure on the decision to be made I would listen and question and then make up my mind. I wouldn't argue for something I wasn't sure about. That is what Boris claims to have done.
Once decided I would back whatever decision was made with a commitment to carry it out.
I completely disagree. Anyone who argues forcefully having weighed up the pros and cons, and decides pros outweigh cons, is intellectually honest.
Anyone who argues forcefully having NOT bothered to weigh up the pros and cons first is intellectually naive at best.
You're conflating weighing up the pros and cons with being uncertain after you've done so.
Everything seems so black and white to you Philip. Have you never been uncertain having weighed up the pros and cons and come to a conclusion and thought on balance I think this is the correct decision, but it is really tight and I might be wrong. When doing so it is best to keep hearing the arguments and challenging them, not argue hell for leather on something that is marginal. By doing so you are unbalancing the argument in favour of something that you are not really sure about. Best to be honest about your views when discussing it with others so that a decision is made on the true reflection of peoples feelings.
Having done that by all means throw your weight behind the implementation of whatever decision is made, but don't distort the discussion by misrepresenting your true views.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Yes, when it comes to our generosity absolutely you have that right. Libertarianism should be within the borders, it doesn't apply to the entire globe and nobody proposes it should because having 7 billion people able to come here without checks simply would not work.
If we are giving aid, if we are giving shelter, then absolutely we should give that to those who need it most.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Regular processes that, let us not forget, take years and cost thousands - even if you’re well qualified, speak excellent English and are married to a Brit.
Indeed. I use Deliveroo six times a week, sometimes more. It costs about £5 more than collecting food myself. If I did collect it myself, the cab fare home would be £5, so the whole deal is cost-neutral. But there is a limit to how much more people will pay for convenience. Tbh the bit I've never really understood is how the drivers make enough money to justify getting out of bed but clearly they must do.
What they are doing of course is demonstrating to the DHSS that they are working, albeit at low pay. Otherwise they would be continually called in and subjected to harangues about finding a job, reskilling and so on.
Good real-world insight there of the kind that politicians tend to miss, as not many have been in Job Centres.
Personally I don't get the appeal of takeaways vs popping something in the microwave, unless there's half a dozen of you. If you're on your own or a couple, then getting some microwaveable food with the next shop or home delivery costs about £3 a head, and preparing it takes 5-10 minutes. Why would I want to hang about waiting for someone to turn up with a lukewarm parcel costing two or three times as much?
Lukewarm junk food doesn't appeal to me much, though I do collect from the Chinese takeaway every other month or so, and a Sikh takeaway about the same.
I had a Deliveroo from Wagamma when round Fox Jr's a couple of months back. Tepid and lots of single use plastics. Not the way that I want to live.
I just batch cook and freeze leftovers now. Microwave meals are full of fat, sugar and salt. No way to eat.
And as we found out with the horse meat scandal, ready meals (even big branded ones) are generally very poor quality ingredients.
As with everything, the super low priced version comes at... a price.
Each to their own, but I couldn't think anything worse than eating ready meals every day. Cooking really isn't hard nor does it have to be time consuming.
Mrs U and I work incredibly long hours (hence why I can be found posting at 4am and then 8-9am), and we still basically cook all our own meals from scratch.
There are also different levels of "scratch". I'll be making a quiche for tea tonight with fresh ingredients, but I'll be using ready-rolled pastry.
I’m a keen cook, and regularly make quiche, and I’d never make pastry for it.
Ready made pastry: quiche takes approximately five minutes of human effort, and everyone loves it.
Robert made pastry: quiche takes an hour of effort, and then leaks in the oven. Dad is grumpy.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Something that has bugged me for sometime is the fact that Boris supposedly wrote two articles one pro one anti Brexit to decide where he stood. Logically that means he didn't have a firm definite view at that stage. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as someone who tends to have strong views there are occasions when I am not sure on something and when I'm not sure I may form a view, but I may also be swayed, so the last thing I do is go out campaigning for my current position. Instead I listen to the arguments and play devils advocate.
I suspect May was in this position re her Remain position.
It does not come over as honest, but more opportunistic that Boris then took the position he did (Ditto I think for Gove).
Is not another interpretation that he was waiting for the result (or some crucial vote within the Party) and then publish the corresponding article? Leading from the back, so to speak.
I can't remember the context of the dual articles, so this may be quite implausible on the logic of the situation.
I can't remember all the details either, but as he was a leader of the leave campaign this must have been before that obviously.
When one writes a pro and con list for yourself it is because you don't know what to do, or you think you do but want to convince yourself. It is implausible that you are so muddled that you have no idea beforehand and after doing it you are so convinced by the argument that you want to lead the campaign.
This argument is either bollocks or your mind is just made up of a spaghetti of thoughts (which with Boris is always possible).
Sorry but that's not reasonable.
Many people I know write pro and con lists and once they've settled on a position go hell to leather for it. I don't think the fact that he thought through both sides of the argument first is a reason for criticism - and I wouldn't if he'd landed on the other side either.
As it happens I was in a similar position. I started off on the Remain side and I was torn in the referendum. I literally ended up writing a pro and con list myself too for the three options I foresaw (hard leave, EEA and Remain - this is before EEA was ruled out by Boris and Gove during the campaign) and doing so helped switch me from Remain to Leave.
Does the fact I considered both sides of the debate somehow devalue my opinion in your eyes? Does it devalue my vote?
People who rush headlong without considering both sides because they've predetermined their decision and can't be swayed no matter the argument are not worthy of more respect.
There is a big difference between you and Boris. What you did was completely rational. You considered both sides and went out to vote accordingly.
There is a big difference between that and becoming a leader of the campaign. I know of nobody who is undecided about a political issue who on making a decision which way to jump then goes hell for leather on campaigning for it. Nobody does. They do it reluctantly as the best option in their opinion.
If you are talking about a decision where on making that decision there is a fork in the road at that point then of course you go hell for leather for it eg changing jobs, buying a house etc. You maybe in doubt but once decided you work hard to make it work, BUT that wasn't that type of decision. The decision was whether to argue for it, not whether to do it. That is very different.
A normal person would do the pros and cons and vote accordingly.
I don't agree, he's a leading politician so leading in politics is literally his day job.
The same is the case for many people's jobs. I don't know what sector you work in but personally in my day job I've had to weigh up pros and cons as to whether to do a project or not - and then once deciding to proceed with the project you then go hell for leather to make sure the project is a success.
If people only led projects they hadn't weighed up the pros and cons for first, then that would not be an improvement to almost any walk of life.
You are mixing up two different things. There is a big difference between making the decision and then the implementation. Once decided you go hell for leather, but frankly anyone who argues forcefully for something they actually are not sure of is being dishonest.
So if I was in a meeting where I wasn't sure on the decision to be made I would listen and question and then make up my mind. I wouldn't argue for something I wasn't sure about. That is what Boris claims to have done.
Once decided I would back whatever decision was made with a commitment to carry it out.
I completely disagree. Anyone who argues forcefully having weighed up the pros and cons, and decides pros outweigh cons, is intellectually honest.
Anyone who argues forcefully having NOT bothered to weigh up the pros and cons first is intellectually naive at best.
You're conflating weighing up the pros and cons with being uncertain after you've done so.
Everything seems so black and white to you Philip. Have you never been uncertain having weighed up the pros and cons and come to a conclusion and thought on balance I think this is the correct decision, but it is really tight and I might be wrong. When doing so it is best to keep hearing the arguments and challenging them, not argue hell for leather on something that is marginal. By doing so you are unbalancing the argument in favour of something that you are not really sure about. Best to be honest about your views when discussing it with others so that a decision is made on the true reflection of peoples feelings.
Having done that by all means throw your weight behind the implementation of whatever decision is made, but don't distort the discussion by misrepresenting your true views.
I've done both, of course. Everything is not black and white, but if I'm unclear of my opinion I tend to not write on the subject and to read instead. So yes what I write on, will by the very nature of selection-bias be things I have stronger opinions on.
Yes its possible to weigh up pros and cons and to think afterwards that you're still not certain. However you're acting as if its guaranteed, it is not guaranteed.
Do you not recognise that its possible to weigh up the pros and cons and having done so be able to come down to a firm decision that the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa?
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Yes, when it comes to our generosity absolutely you have that right. Libertarianism should be within the borders, it doesn't apply to the entire globe and nobody proposes it should because having 7 billion people able to come here without checks simply would not work.
If we are giving aid, if we are giving shelter, then absolutely we should give that to those who need it most.
So you are not a libertarian. Fair enough. Perhaps you never said you were.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
I don't buy that argument. The paranoia of the Chinese state means that they would react the same way if they had no idea of the virus source as they would if it were a lab leak. We've seen very similar behaviour with the Wuhan floods and the deaths in the road tunnels. China's behaviour in blocking any independent scientific investigation of the virus origins is indefensible, but I think it's wrong to assume this proves a leak.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Yes, when it comes to our generosity absolutely you have that right. Libertarianism should be within the borders, it doesn't apply to the entire globe and nobody proposes it should because having 7 billion people able to come here without checks simply would not work.
If we are giving aid, if we are giving shelter, then absolutely we should give that to those who need it most.
So you are not a libertarian. Fair enough. Perhaps you never said you were.
I am a libertarian, I am not a global libertarian who thinks all states and borders can be abolished. I don't think that's viable.
I don't think its necessary to believe that, in order to be a libertarian.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
I think the tricky one on Afghanistan is "so then what should be done?".
And I don't think anyone has an answer.
I can recall the BBC running Vox Pops from Afghanistan asking for "NATO to come", with the basis being NATO as the only reasonably well-organised force. Plus discussions about a new "Strategic Concept" for NATO around 2000.
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 Replying to @Dominic2306 This [elite] network is making climate their new thing - they will screw that up as badly as they handled Brexit, Trump, terrorism, crime etc. If you want serious action on the environment, it's VITAL these deluded Left networks don't dominate or they'll provoke massive counter-campaign
He’s not wrong. There will be a vicious backlash to the climate summit, when it becomes clear that they are expecting to force major changes in everyone’s behaviour and standard of living - while they keep turning up at these summits in a hundred private planes to lecture us about carbon emissions.
It should be close to the top of Boris’s risk register, of issues that could sink him.
Indeed. I use Deliveroo six times a week, sometimes more. It costs about £5 more than collecting food myself. If I did collect it myself, the cab fare home would be £5, so the whole deal is cost-neutral. But there is a limit to how much more people will pay for convenience. Tbh the bit I've never really understood is how the drivers make enough money to justify getting out of bed but clearly they must do.
What they are doing of course is demonstrating to the DHSS that they are working, albeit at low pay. Otherwise they would be continually called in and subjected to harangues about finding a job, reskilling and so on.
Good real-world insight there of the kind that politicians tend to miss, as not many have been in Job Centres.
Personally I don't get the appeal of takeaways vs popping something in the microwave, unless there's half a dozen of you. If you're on your own or a couple, then getting some microwaveable food with the next shop or home delivery costs about £3 a head, and preparing it takes 5-10 minutes. Why would I want to hang about waiting for someone to turn up with a lukewarm parcel costing two or three times as much?
Lukewarm junk food doesn't appeal to me much, though I do collect from the Chinese takeaway every other month or so, and a Sikh takeaway about the same.
I had a Deliveroo from Wagamma when round Fox Jr's a couple of months back. Tepid and lots of single use plastics. Not the way that I want to live.
I just batch cook and freeze leftovers now. Microwave meals are full of fat, sugar and salt. No way to eat.
And as we found out with the horse meat scandal, ready meals (even big branded ones) are generally very poor quality ingredients.
As with everything, the super low priced version comes at... a price.
Each to their own, but I couldn't think anything worse than eating ready meals every day. Cooking really isn't hard nor does it have to be time consuming.
Mrs U and I work incredibly long hours (hence why I can be found posting at 4am and then 8-9am), and we still basically cook all our own meals from scratch.
There are also different levels of "scratch". I'll be making a quiche for tea tonight with fresh ingredients, but I'll be using ready-rolled pastry.
I’m a keen cook, and regularly make quiche, and I’d never make pastry for it.
Ready made pastry: quiche takes approximately five minutes of human effort, and everyone loves it.
Robert made pastry: quiche takes an hour of effort, and then leaks in the oven. Dad is grumpy.
Crumble is good. And premade crumble mix is OK, or make your own including porridge oats.
Just don't do what I did the other day and get a gooseberry one out of the freezer whilst thinking it is apple.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
I don't buy that argument. The paranoia of the Chinese state means that they would react the same way if they had no idea of the virus source as they would if it were a lab leak. We've seen very similar behaviour with the Wuhan floods and the deaths in the road tunnels. China's behaviour in blocking any independent scientific investigation of the virus origins is indefensible, but I think it's wrong to assume this proves a leak.
It remains a possibility, but no more than that.
If it was down to any animal markets they'd be handing over the evidence of that, it puts them officially in the clear. Instead we have jumped up "scientists" getting organised letters published in the Lancet by a dimwitted editor.
The theory has moved from probably to highly likely, IMO. I think you aren't seeing the forest, all of the elements are there, the cover ups, the dodgy lab, the idiot scientists who were working on viral gain of function in the WIV, the same idiot scientists then covering up that work but not very well, the same idiot scientists then getting the Lancet to do their dirty work of calling the lab leak theory somehow racist etc...
Everyone involved in that lab has been desperately trying to cover up the dirt. They know it was them, the Chinese state knows it was the lab. Once again the simple question is this - in Wuhan we had a lab that was researching bat coronaviruses and conducting gain of function research on virus samples they found. We know they were doing this, there are multiple published papers from the scientists that say they were doing this they later attempted to remove from servers. Coincidentally a bat coronavirus which is significantly more transmissible (a gain of function) than anything we've ever seen pops up in exactly the same city as the research is being carried out.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Says you. Again the "libertarian" (you are no libertarian) speaks on behalf of others.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
It already happens.
You are going to cite Australia and its dependent territories. Fine.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
By design. UNHCR explicitly states the nearest state should not end up with all the asylum applicants, so as not to burden the nearest countries with the with the whole problem.
Clearly we need remedial cookery courses for ex-MPs.
Cyclefree kindly advised me on cooking pasta, and another friend has explained how to make an omelette. So sometimes I go wild with those.
I hope it was the right sort of omelette. There are more ways of making omelettes than pawns on a chessboard.
Delia ("One is Fun") is particularly keen on souffle omelettes, where you whip the eggs and finish it off under a grill to make it fluffy with a crust.
I've got "One is Fun" ( a neighbour moving away put out her set of unwanted books for people to snaffle. It's pleasantly light on jargon.
The version I was taught meets my time test, though - break the eggs (10 secs), whip them with a fork (5 seconds), add salt and pepper (10 seconds), fry with butter and oil for half a minute, put some filling in (whatever), fold and eat. Actually faster than a microwaved meal, amazing. Leaves lots of time to work, translate, write leaflets, post on PB, incite revolutions, play computer games or all the other interesting things that life has to offer.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
Thank you for the offer and the kind thought, but alas, I am teaching then and I don’t see how I could count it as CPD to get cover.
Which is a shame as I would like to ask (a) how she fucked up exams so imposingly (b) why she was appointed Head of OFSTED despite having no relevant qualifications or experience without the role even being advertised and (c) why she continues to hold the role despite being a clear safeguarding risk.
I’d probably be kicked out after question 1, of course.
Well I might listen in. I am a trustee of a primary school after all.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
Their cheese and wine would surely be a better prize?
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Clearly we need remedial cookery courses for ex-MPs.
Cyclefree kindly advised me on cooking pasta, and another friend has explained how to make an omelette. So sometimes I go wild with those.
I hope it was the right sort of omelette. There are more ways of making omelettes than pawns on a chessboard.
Delia ("One is Fun") is particularly keen on souffle omelettes, where you whip the eggs and finish it off under a grill to make it fluffy with a crust.
I've got "One is Fun" ( a neighbour moving away put out her set of unwanted books for people to snaffle. It's pleasantly light on jargon.
The version I was taught meets my time test, though - break the eggs (10 secs), whip them with a fork (5 seconds), add salt and pepper (10 seconds), fry with butter and oil for half a minute, put some filling in (whatever), fold and eat. Actually faster than a microwaved meal, amazing. Leaves lots of time to work, translate, write leaflets, post on PB, incite revolutions, play computer games or all the other interesting things that life has to offer.
Mum gave me that book when I moved away from home as a student! Though I also found one of those rationing era MiniFood or WRI booklets on basic cookery actually very useful.
Comments
So the current percentage of Conservative support is now at its zenith and from here it can only go down?
Fair enough.
Average US cases/day via @CNN
Right now: 116,722 cases/day
7 days ago: 90,576 cases/day
14 days ago: 61,306 cases/day
21 days ago: 37,056 cases/day
28 days ago: 23,910 cases/day
35 days ago: 13,611 cases/day
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1425446242054811649
'The green crap' and the migrant crisis are what's damaging him universally, probably 50/50 on lockdowns and vaccine passports.
Labour needs to put the Tories back into a minority government if it can't form a government without the SNP. I think that Labour would be finished as an electoral force in England if they get into bed with the SNP.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm
FWIW I try to be green, I'm trying to atone for all the one man global warming machines I drove for most of my adult life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW3e_1lZST4
But it's unlikely.
Delia ("One is Fun") is particularly keen on souffle omelettes, where you whip the eggs and finish it off under a grill to make it fluffy with a crust.
All that is known is he wrote a pros and cons list in advance.
Having uncertainty before you do a pros and cons list is not the same as having uncertainty after you do it.
When I say "kipper tie" I mean a tie with a picture of kipper on it.....
EDIT: Thinking of Belfast, some other Dutch chaps I knew walked into an Irish pub in London, On St Paddy's Day. Wearing Oranje shirts - since Oranje had been playing that day.....
By the grace of God I happened to be there at the time.....
See also Greensill and his warnings about a future lobbying scandal.
One of the advantages for Johnson of the buffoonery is that people don't think he's that capable of keeping up an elaborate deception for a long time. They reckon he's bought to put his foot in it. So it makes him seem a bit more trustworthy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43694295
Pluls, critically for me, and for any LotO for that matter, I can't see Jess voting with the government time after time as per SKS has done. She would I'm sure and I hope rather chew her own arm off than walk through the same lobby as JRM et al.
That article quotes energy bills as being £1400 in 2013. After inflation that is £1645 now.
The current megaflap is about an increase in average bills from £1150 to £1290.
Something is achieving a change, and I think it is probably 50:50 competitive market and green measures.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57722096
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
https://twitter.com/ManCity/status/1425183146283307009?s=20
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Costs:
Less trade with EU (-1 point)
Less manufacturing (-1 point)
Less influence in the world (-1 point)
Less tax income through labour shortages (-1 point)
Less GDP (-1 point)
More red tape costs (-1 point)
Costs to the NHS (-1 point)
Costs to farming (-1 point)
Costs to fishing Industry (-1 point)
Cost to financial services industry. (-1 point)
Compromises GFA (-1 point)
Reduction in free movement for Briton's in Europe (-1 point)
More hassle for holidaying in the EU. (-1 point)
Roaming charges (-1 point)
Etc. etc (-1 point)
Benefits:
Less free movement for EU citizens. (+1 point)
An intangible called "sovereignty." (+1 point)
Boris Johnson increases his propensity to become PM. (+1,000,000 points)
So by the crucial measure of "Boris Johnson increases his propensity to become PM", benefits clearly outweigh costs.
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
So they have moved from running the boats themselves to piling them full of people and letting one of them steer. At least that is what this gentlemen says...
The next step from the Med playbook will be casting boats adrift, outside the French territorial limit, with a dead/no engine and calling the...... RNLI....
#China’s Party-controlled press is now furiously busy scrubbing its reports regarding Swiss biologist “Wilson Edwards” said to be embroiled in a
@WHO #covid scandal however...
https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1425131858279419905
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
Replying to
@Dominic2306
This [elite] network is making climate their new thing - they will screw that up as badly as they handled Brexit, Trump, terrorism, crime etc. If you want serious action on the environment, it's VITAL these deluded Left networks don't dominate or they'll provoke massive counter-campaign
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
If you are not being sarcastic, I will certainly post my mother's recipe. Or you can Google it.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
He said he fled Iran because his "life was in danger", adding the past five years in Europe had been "hell".
Having done that by all means throw your weight behind the implementation of whatever decision is made, but don't distort the discussion by misrepresenting your true views.
Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
Quite the briefing.
Kemi Badenoch tipped as next education secretary in reshuffle
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/11/kemi-badenoch-tipped-next-education-secretary-reshuffle
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
🔵 Top 3 Tory issues facing the UK
Immigration - 53%
Economy - 52%
Health - 44%
🔴 Top 3 Labour issues facing the UK
Health - 62%
Environment - 45%
Economy - 38%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/11/despite-pandemic-immigration-conservative-voters-n?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=tory_immigration_concern https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1425462448455356419/photo/1
Invade and steal their oil.
If we are giving aid, if we are giving shelter, then absolutely we should give that to those who need it most.
ian bremmer
@ianbremmer
21m
% of Americans who
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31%
Somewhat support 42%
Somewhat oppose 20%
Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73%
Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
Ready made pastry: quiche takes approximately five minutes of human effort, and everyone loves it.
Robert made pastry: quiche takes an hour of effort, and then leaks in the oven. Dad is grumpy.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
Yes its possible to weigh up pros and cons and to think afterwards that you're still not certain. However you're acting as if its guaranteed, it is not guaranteed.
Do you not recognise that its possible to weigh up the pros and cons and having done so be able to come down to a firm decision that the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa?
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
The paranoia of the Chinese state means that they would react the same way if they had no idea of the virus source as they would if it were a lab leak. We've seen very similar behaviour with the Wuhan floods and the deaths in the road tunnels.
China's behaviour in blocking any independent scientific investigation of the virus origins is indefensible, but I think it's wrong to assume this proves a leak.
It remains a possibility, but no more than that.
I don't think its necessary to believe that, in order to be a libertarian.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
And I don't think anyone has an answer.
I can recall the BBC running Vox Pops from Afghanistan asking for "NATO to come", with the basis being NATO as the only reasonably well-organised force. Plus discussions about a new "Strategic Concept" for NATO around 2000.
Those two unfortunately dovetailed.
It should be close to the top of Boris’s risk register, of issues that could sink him.
Just don't do what I did the other day and get a gooseberry one out of the freezer whilst thinking it is apple.
BoZo is pissing on her grave
https://tinyurl.com/637dsydn
The theory has moved from probably to highly likely, IMO. I think you aren't seeing the forest, all of the elements are there, the cover ups, the dodgy lab, the idiot scientists who were working on viral gain of function in the WIV, the same idiot scientists then covering up that work but not very well, the same idiot scientists then getting the Lancet to do their dirty work of calling the lab leak theory somehow racist etc...
Everyone involved in that lab has been desperately trying to cover up the dirt. They know it was them, the Chinese state knows it was the lab. Once again the simple question is this - in Wuhan we had a lab that was researching bat coronaviruses and conducting gain of function research on virus samples they found. We know they were doing this, there are multiple published papers from the scientists that say they were doing this they later attempted to remove from servers. Coincidentally a bat coronavirus which is significantly more transmissible (a gain of function) than anything we've ever seen pops up in exactly the same city as the research is being carried out.
Other theories are no longer credible.
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
So where did you have in mind for our unwanted?
The version I was taught meets my time test, though - break the eggs (10 secs), whip them with a fork (5 seconds), add salt and pepper (10 seconds), fry with butter and oil for half a minute, put some filling in (whatever), fold and eat. Actually faster than a microwaved meal, amazing. Leaves lots of time to work, translate, write leaflets, post on PB, incite revolutions, play computer games or all the other interesting things that life has to offer.
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.