Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
What exactly is the definition of the "Red Wall?" Is it seats Labour lost?
It's a bit strange that they are still referred to as the "Red Wall". It rather implies that they are still Labour territory and Conservative success in them is a temporary aberration.
Is it really a good idea of Biden to pick the least favourite black candidate with black voters?
It's a very easy move for him. By nearly all accounts it's going to be a fiasco, and attempts to fix it may well make it worse, either way the government is going to look bad and he need do no more than say 'This is bad. I will not be bad' and it'll make some headway.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Not to get ahead of ourselves. But who will the Republicans pick in 2024 against Harris then?
Don Jnr. unless Don Snr. can overturn the two term rule by than.
Surely Ivanka is the favoured child?
Don Jnr. is even more witless than his father, certainly a chip off the old block. Ivanka has less of the totalitarian dictator about her than Jnr. or Eric.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Sometimes life is unfair, sometimes incumbency is unfair.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Before you cancel just answer one very simple question:
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Expected would have been a better word to use to describe it. How the recovery is handled is crucial.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Sometimes life is unfair, sometimes incumbency is unfair.
It certainly is, and I do think the government is ultimately screwed as a result. But it will be reasonable to seek to determine where problems were inevitable and unmitigatable, and where attempts at mitigation were possible but failed. I suspect massive job losses are in the former category, the school marking issue the latter.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Before you cancel just answer one very simple question:
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
That seems almost completely irrelevant given that there were hundreds of thousands of refugees already crossing Europe at the height of the crisis in 2015. The immediate problem at the time was what to do with those who were already in Europe, and Merkel was the only one to offer more that mealy-mouthed platitudes. Cameron's offer of safe passage for a few thousand from Turkey was an insignificant drop in the ocean.
Not to get ahead of ourselves. But who will the Republicans pick in 2024 against Harris then?
Jared Kushner?
Jews will not replace us.
Watching 'The Plot Against America' I couldn't help but think of Jared when Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf was on screen.
I keep thinking of John Oliver who said he’d never heard Kushner speak, so he got Gilbert Gottfried to mime his words like the BBC used to do with Gerry Adams. Every time I see Kushner now, I think he has a shouty and squeaky voice!
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Expected would have been a better word to use to describe it. How the recovery is handled is crucial.
Very true. However the scale of devastation makes a solid recovery by 2024 a very tough ask.
By the way how is that trade deal with the EU coming along? Oh and Japan, cheese anyone?
Oh, for god's sake. This is just farcical now. We didn't even have full mock exams, our grades were based on regular assessments then matched to value added scores from the past few years. There was a very accurate grade given to them, so use that one.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Before you cancel just answer one very simple question:
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
That seems almost completely irrelevant given that there were already hundreds of thousands of refugees in Europe at the height of the crisis in 2015. The immediate problem at the time was what to do with those who were already in Europe, and Merkel was the only one to offer more that mealy-mouthed platitudes. Cameron's offer of safe passage for a few thousand from Turkey was a drop in the ocean.
No the hundreds of thousands in numbers surged AFTER Merkel unilaterally tore up the rulebook and said that she would accept people who make it there but not provide safe transport.
But those hundreds of thousands either way were a drop in the ocean. There were millions of refugees. There were millions who ended in Turkey not hundreds of thousands. So what did Merkel offer to those millions beyond an incentive to pay people traffickers?
Cameron offering safe transit and financial support to Turkey was far more honourable than Merkel encouraging criminal enterprises.
Trump's discussing "increasing cases" in European countries in percentage terms - omitting that they're starting from a much lower base! And keeps calling it the "China virus"
Oh, for god's sake. This is just farcical now. We didn't even have full mock exams, our grades were based on regular assessments then matched to value added scores from the past few years. There was a very accurate grade given to them, so use that one.
I would absolutely love to see the list of potential options for this whole situation that civil servants will have drawn up, along with the risks and potential negatives. Given which options have been selected, some of the other ones on those lists must be quite something.
Trump's discussing "increasing cases" in European countries in percentage terms - omitting that they're starting from a much lower base! And keeps calling it the "China virus"
NY Governor Cuomo calls it the "European Virus" as the initial outbreak in NY and neighbours seems to have come from Italy.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Expected would have been a better word to use to describe it. How the recovery is handled is crucial.
Very true. However the scale of devastation makes a solid recovery by 2024 a very tough ask.
By the way how is that trade deal with the EU coming along? Oh and Japan, cheese anyone?
The pandemic is also going to bring about structural changes in working patterns, which might otherwise have been seen over a decade or two. There’s probably a decade’s worth of economic rebalancing that needs to happen, but for most people their quality of life will look more positive than the raw GDP statistics will indicate.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Before you cancel just answer one very simple question:
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
That seems almost completely irrelevant given that there were already hundreds of thousands of refugees in Europe at the height of the crisis in 2015. The immediate problem at the time was what to do with those who were already in Europe, and Merkel was the only one to offer more that mealy-mouthed platitudes. Cameron's offer of safe passage for a few thousand from Turkey was a drop in the ocean.
No the hundreds of thousands in numbers surged AFTER Merkel unilaterally tore up the rulebook and said that she would accept people who make it there but not provide safe transport.
But those hundreds of thousands either way were a drop in the ocean. There were millions of refugees. There were millions who ended in Turkey not hundreds of thousands. So what did Merkel offer to those millions beyond an incentive to pay people traffickers?
Cameron offering safe transit and financial support to Turkey was far more honourable than Merkel encouraging criminal enterprises.
No, you are misremembering. By September of 2015, over 300,000 refugees had already arrived in Europe, and it was only then that Merkel agreed that they could settle in Germany, thus solving what appeared to be a looming humanitarian catastrophe at the time. Cameron's settlement of a few thousand from Turkey was an insignificant gesture in comparison.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Expected would have been a better word to use to describe it. How the recovery is handled is crucial.
Very true. However the scale of devastation makes a solid recovery by 2024 a very tough ask.
By the way how is that trade deal with the EU coming along? Oh and Japan, cheese anyone?
The pandemic is also going to bring about structural changes in working patterns, which might otherwise have been seen over a decade or two. There’s probably a decade’s worth of economic rebalancing that needs to happen, but for most people their quality of life will look more positive than the raw GDP statistics will indicate.
The quality of life vs GDP trade-off will be fascinating.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.
Oh really?
So did she offer safe transit for a million plus people? Did she have some selection criteria, or even lottery or any other metric to fairly determine who those million would be? Did she do so based on needs?
Or did she walk away from making any decisions and did people smugglers and criminal gangs provide the transport for a million people leaving people to drown due to her inaction?
Given your objections to eg private schools, I don't understand how you don't seethe with rage at how despicable her letting money and gangs determine who could migrate instead of fairness. Clearly your ideals on fairness only go so far.
By saying that anyone who made it there could stay but there'd be no legal movement or safe transit and you'd have to pay people smugglers to get you there - was no more fair than a politician saying everyone should have a good education, so long as parents pay tuition fees to private schools and there will be no state schools.
I do wonder about you sometimes. That is a bizarre take and a beyond bizarre analogy.
What's confusing about it?
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
The analogy - Merkel's "private schools" solution to the migrant crisis vs Cameron's "bog standard comp" approach - is utterly ludicrous.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
Before you cancel just answer one very simple question:
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
No, I don't feel that I'm afraid to admit the truth even to myself. Although of course it's by definition possible.
But anyway - that was better without the analogy. It's a shame the cancellation has already started otherwise we could have continued and just possibly got somewhere. Probably that Cameron was good on this issue but Merkel was different gravy.
It was a prediction, I was thinking more on the lines of, on the cusp of saving his team he got fired by his boss.
I rate Nige. He was the brains behind Robson's "Great Escape" at the Baggies. I also thought it might get a reaction from Ave it.
Are you an Ostrich?
Big Nige would never need to pay for drinks in Leicester. A legend here, and despite his sacking for the racist sex orgy still on good terms with our owners.
It's a fucking pandemic. Of course it's devastating.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
Expected would have been a better word to use to describe it. How the recovery is handled is crucial.
Very true. However the scale of devastation makes a solid recovery by 2024 a very tough ask.
By the way how is that trade deal with the EU coming along? Oh and Japan, cheese anyone?
The pandemic is also going to bring about structural changes in working patterns, which might otherwise have been seen over a decade or two. There’s probably a decade’s worth of economic rebalancing that needs to happen, but for most people their quality of life will look more positive than the raw GDP statistics will indicate.
Personally I think the statistics will prove to be more positive than reality. I suspect technically we will be well out of recession by this time next year but on the ground aspirational types will be having their houses and cars repossessed, through circumstances that are out of their control.
Comments
Yar-boo to People from Putney.
Off now to find a kipper for supper.
Cameron bravely did the right thing to much opprobrium and criticism - the UK took in refugees directly from Turkey, giving them safe transit to get her. Educationally, that's similar to Comprehensive education that you support - getting it fairly rather than via connections or money.
Merkel stepped back and said let others sort it out and walked off. She offered no safe transit and people smugglers stepped in to the void so the people who made it to Germany were those wealthy enough to pay smugglers or healthy enough to make it on their own back. The educational equivalent of private schools only.
Why is it that with education you want it to be determined by the state "fairly" in your eyes - but for migration you think that it is to be commended allowing people smugglers and connections to determine who gets in without any safe and legal transit organised by the state?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/11/scottish-conservatives-appoint-ruth-davidson-as-holyrood-leader
I guess at least Harris will be good for getting the vote out in the marginal state of California.
Devastating
https://twitter.com/CarlosLozadaWP/status/1293292096342953986
Buttygig has already started his campaign.
Is it really a good idea of Biden to pick the least favourite black candidate with black voters?
How many (potential) leaders can say that of their deputies?
Keir is going hard
Tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration
Watching 'The Plot Against America' I couldn't help but think of Jared when Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf was on screen.
I think you know this and are seeking to irritate rather than illuminate.
I am therefore forced to cancel you again. Same terms as last time. 48 hours with potential rethink after 24.
For anyone interested in a libertarian take on her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-SaRDG6V-s
On Rebbe Lionel that is.
If there weren't these job losses, you'd be screaming that the government was making mountains of molehills.
Question: what would you have done differently to what Rishi Sunak has done to mitigate the hardship? I'm guessing "nothing much", because that is what we are hearing from the Labour Party. Nothing much.
https://twitter.com/danskitwit/status/1293148684012716032
Not regretting it.
My teachers didn't want me to get complacent.
Who provided more safe, state provided transit from Turkey: Merkel or Cameron?
Are you afraid to admit the truth even to yourself.
This is absolutely comical lol
Well this aged badly
Surely?
https://twitter.com/simon_schama/status/1293299409070034944?s=20
I would never have known my true capabilities.
Tough time for 6th formers.
I did A Level maths in one year, and achieved an A, which I breezed, so there was a fear I might think A Levels were easy.
Quarters 1 and 2 will have been a recession but the July to September period will have positive growth meaning the recession ended six weeks ago.
Seems like the best of a bad situation.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1293300619516579840?s=20
By the way how is that trade deal with the EU coming along? Oh and Japan, cheese anyone?
But those hundreds of thousands either way were a drop in the ocean. There were millions of refugees. There were millions who ended in Turkey not hundreds of thousands. So what did Merkel offer to those millions beyond an incentive to pay people traffickers?
Cameron offering safe transit and financial support to Turkey was far more honourable than Merkel encouraging criminal enterprises.
It gives pupils a choice and a responsibility.
The alternative is 'I want, I want, I want' which does them no good in the medium or long term.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1293290394613153796?s=20
Technically I think we are officially in a recession now, but looking back we will be able to say the recession officially ended 30 June.
Economics is fun.
Sleepy Joe and ...
I rate Nige. He was the brains behind Robson's "Great Escape" at the Baggies. I also thought it might get a reaction from Ave it.
But anyway - that was better without the analogy. It's a shame the cancellation has already started otherwise we could have continued and just possibly got somewhere. Probably that Cameron was good on this issue but Merkel was different gravy.
Ah well.
Big Nige would never need to pay for drinks in Leicester. A legend here, and despite his sacking for the racist sex orgy still on good terms with our owners.