"Housing asylum seekers who have entered UK by unofficial means in purpose-built “reception centres” rather than hotels"
All voters Fair 56% Unfair 20%
Cons Fair 80% Unfair 5%
Labour Fair 33% Unfair 39%
YouGov March 21
Matthew "I don't understand the Government policy" Goodwin.
You cannot enter a country by legitimate means to gain asylum, how is this so difficult to understand!
You claim asylum at the border
You haven't entered the UK in that case - and where can you do that?
You can't do that. If "claim asylum at the border" was a route its just possible the people paying £10k to drown their children would pay £200 for a BA flight instead and claim it at Heathrow.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
Authoritarian in tendency. We're increasingly far down the slippery slope. On the scenario where parliament fails to sanction Johnson for lying to it, truth becomes something that no longer need concern politicians. They can make up any old shit and have their client media broadcast it out.
And its hardly as if we can do what we like now. Remember that the police rounded up and persecuted in some cases women protesting peacefully against the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer. And laws have been passed to make certain protests illegal. Not many more steps until screaming at people "THATS WOKE! YOU ARE WOKE! YOU SUPPORT RAPISTS POSING AS WOMEN!" just turns into shutting up dissenters properly. With lies told about it in parliament and just accepted.
Not remotely a left / right partisan issue. The hard authoritarian left also like to deny reality and silence dissenters. So we have to clamp down hard on it before it becomes insidious. Especially when its a populist shill like Boris Johnson.
Your point that this isn't a left/right issue is a good one. It isn't even a hard left/right issue - it's easy to see how people on the centre left/right begin to draw the "taboo" lines closer and closer to their own positions, in this kind of atmosphere.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
So, basically, let them all in. Anyone who wants to come, come
I look forward to Labour adopting that in their 2024 manifesto, and their subsequent wipe out in the ensuing election
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
So, basically, let them all in. Anyone who wants to come, come
I look forward to Labour adopting that in their 2024 manifesto, and their subsequent wipe out in the ensuing election
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
“Clamp down on LGBT rights”???
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
You've missed the row over trans rights then. Launching a culture war against woke with people like my friend Lauren as the cannon fodder. Instead of having a sensible debate they want people to vote Tory because Labour want to allow chicks with dicks to molest our womenfolk in the changing room.
Sound familiar? As I said, its on the same trajectory as Russia - create a hostile environment for us in the LGBTQetc community is step 1. Then if they can get mouth-breathers shouting abuse at benders to wind up the lefties even better.
My party proposed gay equality when in government. David Cameron to his absolute credit took it on and made it government policy. Overrode the homophobes in the Tory ranks. All being undone because of "war on woke". Do you know anyone obsessed with attacking "woke" Mr Leon...?
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
So, basically, let them all in. Anyone who wants to come, come
I look forward to Labour adopting that in their 2024 manifesto, and their subsequent wipe out in the ensuing election
lolz - as I'm a LibDem I'm hardly the person for you to hurl Labour policies at. Not that adopting a viable policy on asylum is "let them all in". As you well know when you are sober.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
It is the catastrophising that Sean_F referred to that is the problem. The Overton window creeping to the right, and increasing populism/authoritarianism/lack of honesty in politics and media is a worrying trend. And I agree with RP that it is on a different axis from left/right.
But that doesn't mean we are inevitably headed to the gulags.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
“Clamp down on LGBT rights”???
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
You've missed the row over trans rights then. Launching a culture war against woke with people like my friend Lauren as the cannon fodder. Instead of having a sensible debate they want people to vote Tory because Labour want to allow chicks with dicks to molest our womenfolk in the changing room.
Sound familiar? As I said, its on the same trajectory as Russia - create a hostile environment for us in the LGBTQetc community is step 1. Then if they can get mouth-breathers shouting abuse at benders to wind up the lefties even better.
My party proposed gay equality when in government. David Cameron to his absolute credit took it on and made it government policy. Overrode the homophobes in the Tory ranks. All being undone because of "war on woke". Do you know anyone obsessed with attacking "woke" Mr Leon...?
When left wing women are getting murder and rape threats on social media because they oppose self I/D, I don't really think the culture war is being launched by the government.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
Fascinating. Who said anything about fascism? Putin isn't fascist. Johnson isn't fascist.
You know that you are describing yourself with that post don't you?
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
“Clamp down on LGBT rights”???
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
You've missed the row over trans rights then. Launching a culture war against woke with people like my friend Lauren as the cannon fodder. Instead of having a sensible debate they want people to vote Tory because Labour want to allow chicks with dicks to molest our womenfolk in the changing room.
Sound familiar? As I said, its on the same trajectory as Russia - create a hostile environment for us in the LGBTQetc community is step 1. Then if they can get mouth-breathers shouting abuse at benders to wind up the lefties even better.
My party proposed gay equality when in government. David Cameron to his absolute credit took it on and made it government policy. Overrode the homophobes in the Tory ranks. All being undone because of "war on woke". Do you know anyone obsessed with attacking "woke" Mr Leon...?
Many of the notable people, most vocally opposed to extreme Trans Rights Activists, are lesbians. Cf Kathlyn Stock and Julie Bindel
And J K Rowling, Hadley Freeman, Suzanne Moore, Joanne Cherry, and many many more, are on the Left
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
“Clamp down on LGBT rights”???
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
You've missed the row over trans rights then. Launching a culture war against woke with people like my friend Lauren as the cannon fodder. Instead of having a sensible debate they want people to vote Tory because Labour want to allow chicks with dicks to molest our womenfolk in the changing room.
Sound familiar? As I said, its on the same trajectory as Russia - create a hostile environment for us in the LGBTQetc community is step 1. Then if they can get mouth-breathers shouting abuse at benders to wind up the lefties even better.
My party proposed gay equality when in government. David Cameron to his absolute credit took it on and made it government policy. Overrode the homophobes in the Tory ranks. All being undone because of "war on woke". Do you know anyone obsessed with attacking "woke" Mr Leon...?
Many of the notable people, most vocally opposed to extreme Trans Rights Activists, are lesbians. Cf Kathlyn Stock and Julie Bindel
And J K Rowling, Hadley Freeman, Suzanne Moore, Joanne Cherry, and many many more, are on the Left
I am also opposed to the extreme trans rights activists. And the extreme women's rights activists. And extremes in general. This isn't about extremes as a man of your intelligence knows. This is a wedge issue.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
Not Calais, if you want to prevent boat crossings, but agreed on the principle. And give Francs an incentive, too, by linking the numbers accepted to a decrease in the number of crossings. It would might even be cheaper than paying them to ineffectively patrol beaches as we're doing now.
The other point about Rwanda is that it's considerably more 'overcrowded' than we are, with a population density nearly double. And far poorer. The immorality of the scheme is blatant.
"Housing asylum seekers who have entered UK by unofficial means in purpose-built “reception centres” rather than hotels"
All voters Fair 56% Unfair 20%
Cons Fair 80% Unfair 5%
Labour Fair 33% Unfair 39%
YouGov March 21
Matthew "I don't understand the Government policy" Goodwin.
You cannot enter a country by legitimate means to gain asylum, how is this so difficult to understand!
You claim asylum at the border
You haven't entered the UK in that case - and where can you do that?
You are right and wrong. The people stuck in camps in Calais cannot, because they can’t get that far, since they do not have visa free tourism travel, and would not be granted a visa.
But if a frenchman, for example, wants to claim asylum in britain, he can simply travel as a tourist, and claim at Heathrow. In fact, there are signs upon disembarkation saying that your asylum claim may be damaged if you do not claim immediately, and telling you how to claim.
So your right to asylum is effectively mediated through your right to tourism, which makes no sense, admittedly.
There's too much concern with this debate about 'genocide'. I don't know whether Putin or Russia are guilty of it but it is pretty clear that the mass murder of a civilian population is seen as a legitimate tactic of war. He doesn't appear remotely bothered by how many people he kills if they refuse to submit to his authority and are an impediment to achieving more territory and dominance. That's about as bad as it gets. Whether it counts as genocide I don't know.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
The stage gate is actually the willingness to use violence in place of playing by the rules of democracy. Someone like Trump is willing to do that (albeit half-heartedly) whereas this government is not.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
There's too much concern with this debate about 'genocide'. I don't know whether Putin or Russia are guilty of it but it is pretty clear that the mass murder of a civilian population is seen as a legitimate tactic of war. He doesn't appear remotely bothered by how many people he kills if they refuse to submit to his authority and are an impediment to achieving more territory and dominance. That's about as bad as it gets. Whether it counts as genocide I don't know.
"Genocide" is an over-used term. Mass murder is just as bad, and more accurately describes what Putin is doing.
It will be interesting to see how people react after their summer holidays this year. The need to stamp passports will create Heathrowesque queues at most airports.
There is good news though! The new EES/ETIAS system is coming in the autumn, so back to biometric checks of your passport and entry visa. The only problem is that everyone has to be checked. Nobody seems to know how Eurotunnel will manage the border issue when the drive on / drive off functionality is no longer allowed.
"Make those who enter UK by unofficial means unable to claim asylum if they pass through safe country on way to UK, or have a connection to another safe country"
All voters Fair 61% Unfair 21%
Cons Fair 84% Unfair 6%
Labour Fair 41% Unfair 39%
YouGov Mar 2021
We would have to leave every refugee convention for that, the ones that we created that BTW allowed Ukrainian refugees to come here, which the public supports
The 'First safe country' system only works if you are dealing with a relatively small number of refugees who can be quickly and easily processed at point of entry. As soon as you move to the mass movements we are seeing over the last decade then you have to adopt a policy of all responsible western governments doing their bit either by accepting large scale movements of people to their countries before processing or by investing in massive systems of effective and rapid processing in the first countries of entry. Simply saying that countries like Turkey, Greece or Poland should bear all the costs and disruption of processing hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees is morally and practically repugnant. It is a negation of our responsibilities as first world democracies.
Note that this argument does not mean we we should accept large numbers of economic migrants on a permanent basis. It means that the processing should be effective and humane and should be done by all countries equally bearing responsibility not just a few. We could still - if we wished - send back those who are judged not to be genuine refugees.
Dundee Courier today bursts a long standing myth by denying that the headline the day after the Titanic went down was "Dundee man lost at sea"....before a long piece showing the links between Dundee and the Titanic including a Broughty Ferry man (a posh suburb of Dundee) who accidently took the key for the locker in the crows nest which held the ship's binoculars. When asked how much that might have helped in the heavy sea the answer was "enough to get out of the way." He was, of course, a scapegoat and other binoculars were available but not used. Phew!
There's too much concern with this debate about 'genocide'. I don't know whether Putin or Russia are guilty of it but it is pretty clear that the mass murder of a civilian population is seen as a legitimate tactic of war. He doesn't appear remotely bothered by how many people he kills if they refuse to submit to his authority and are an impediment to achieving more territory and dominance. That's about as bad as it gets. Whether it counts as genocide I don't know.
"Genocide" is an over-used term. Mass murder is just as bad, and more accurately describes what Putin is doing.
Not quite, since it leaves out the enforced deportations, and illegal forced adoptions if thousands of children, together with the stated intent of destroying a sovereign nation. genocide is not proved, but there is a strong prima facie case for it - and it would certainly have met the Nuremberg threshold, where the Nazi treatment of Czechoslovakia (in addition to the treatment of its Jewish population) was charged as genocide.
Can I just say that I have had the theme tune of World at war and the somber voice of Laurence Olivier in my head the entire day after your contribution this morning.
Nearly 50 years on and I don’t think anything I have seen on TV came close to matching it. Surely the greatest documentary series of all time.
I would agree with that. The opening lines of the first episode are haunting.
‘Down this road on a summer day in 1944, the soldiers came. Nobody lives here now. They stayed only a few hours. When they had gone, the community, which had lived for a thousand years, was dead. This is Oradour-sur-Glane, in France. The day the soldiers came, the people were gathered together. The men were taken to garages and barns, the women and children were led down this road, and they were driven into this church. Here, they heard the firing as their men were shot. Then they were killed too. A few weeks later, many of those who had done the killing were themselves dead, in battle. They never rebuilt Oradour. Its ruins are a memorial. Its martyrdom stands for thousands upon thousands of other martyrdoms in Poland, in Russia, in Burma, China, in a world at war.’
I remember watching World at War as a child with my father who had fought in it.
A superb documentary.
Great thread, except for the suggestion this was anything other than a commonplace event
To re-repeat myself
"Another plug for Come and See, search for that and mosfilm on YouTube. Russian fllm 1985 which is pretty much the film of [Oradour-sur-Glane], except set in Belarus. Where the same thing happened in 628 villages."
628 villages in Belarus.
Yes. It's not a competition, but there's a reason why WW2 casts a particularly long shadow in Eastern Europe. 25% of the Russian population in the occupied area were killed.
Though the largest proportion of those were inhabitants of present day Ukraine.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
The stage gate is actually the willingness to use violence in place of playing by the rules of democracy. Someone like Trump is willing to do that (albeit half-heartedly) whereas this government is not.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
The first para I completely agree with and I guess I do as well re the 2nd para, but there is the subtleties of the lying. Most politicians will mislead or avoid the truth, but most won't out and out lie. I always think of Michael Howard and the Paxman interview. He was clearly misleading and avoiding the truth, but refused to out and out lie and that was his downfall. He was too honest. Boris or Trump would lie. They would be exposed later, but so what.
A lovely afternoon in East London - I drop in for a quick perusal and it's all about the "I" word.
The problem with the immigration debate is it's a jungle of nuances, misconceptions, differing experiences and goes beyond simple economics to touch on deep-rooted cultural and social attitudes and mores.
In other words, it's complex.
History tells you any group of people moving into a new area changes that area fundamentally and regrettably often disadvantageously for the indigenous peoples - not always and the immediate impact might look very different compared with the perspective of decades later when a degree of integration has taken place.
Of course, many previous migrations were invasions when force was used to usurp the native population and take their land - nowadays, it's different but still seen in terms of economics - skills, the impact of cheaper labour on the wages of those already in place, housing costs etc.
The more difficult part is or has been the cultural - we started from a position of multi-culturalism and have moved away from that towards mono-culturalism. The expectation that migrants should be "more like us" in terms of language, dress and custom has a not insignificant level of support.
The counter argument we are all enriched from exposure to and experience of other cultures seems to have less traction - perhaps because human nature dictates people like people like themselves we find incoming groups coalescing into communities leaving the indigenous people feeling "surrounded" or taking the opportunity to sell up and leave to a different area. In some areas (Newham's not a bad example), you get communities within communities almost down to a street or neighbourhood level.
Yet another article that seems to have misunderstood the Rwanda plan:
"Moreover, since research carried out by the Refugee Council suggests that 61 per cent of those arriving by boat win their asylum claims, then why the objection to them being safely processed in Kigali rather than risking the rough seas?"
Unless there has been some clarification, as I understood the announcement, they would not be being processed in Kigali with a view to some of them (majority even?) coming back having been processed and assessed as a refugee. They are all staying there. It is one-way ticket as the Mail was making very clear all of yesterday.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
So, basically, let them all in. Anyone who wants to come, come
I look forward to Labour adopting that in their 2024 manifesto, and their subsequent wipe out in the ensuing election
I predict Labour's policy will be somewhere in the (largish) territory between abolishing border controls and deporting our refugees to Rwanda.
You know how dull and boring they are under Sanity Starmer.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
The stage gate is actually the willingness to use violence in place of playing by the rules of democracy. Someone like Trump is willing to do that (albeit half-heartedly) whereas this government is not.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
The first para I completely agree with and I guess I do as well re the 2nd para, but there is the subtleties of the lying. Most politicians will mislead or avoid the truth, but most won't out and out lie. I always think of Michael Howard and the Paxman interview. He was clearly misleading and avoiding the truth, but refused to out and out lie and that was his downfall. He was too honest. Boris or Trump would lie. They would be exposed later, but so what.
Yep, Johnson is different gravy on the lying. It's not a matter of him being just a bit worse on something we expect from politicians. He's not pushing the envelope with it, he's writing a new playbook. Or trying to anyway. And if he somehow gets the public to reelect him he'll have succeeded. Hence why GE24 is so very important imo. A country's self-respect is on the line. There were valid reasons for backing him in 2019. This time there won't be.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Have just subscribed to F1.tv where they appear to have both feature-length season summaries and full races. An awful lot of full faces. I may be in trouble here...
Have just subscribed to F1.tv where they appear to have both feature-length season summaries and full races. An awful lot of full faces. I may be in trouble here...
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
The stage gate is actually the willingness to use violence in place of playing by the rules of democracy. Someone like Trump is willing to do that (albeit half-heartedly) whereas this government is not.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
The first para I completely agree with and I guess I do as well re the 2nd para, but there is the subtleties of the lying. Most politicians will mislead or avoid the truth, but most won't out and out lie. I always think of Michael Howard and the Paxman interview. He was clearly misleading and avoiding the truth, but refused to out and out lie and that was his downfall. He was too honest. Boris or Trump would lie. They would be exposed later, but so what.
Yep, Johnson is different gravy on the lying. It's not a matter of him being just a bit worse on something we expect from politicians. He's not pushing the envelope with it, he's writing a new playbook. Or trying to anyway. And if he somehow gets the public to reelect him he'll have succeeded. Hence why GE24 is so very important imo. A country's self-respect is on the line. There were valid reasons for backing him in 2019. This time there won't be.
I haven't voted Conservative in a very long time, but I've never voted Labour. I will definitely do do this time around if they are the closest challengers to the Tories in my constituency. And that is not out of any particular fondness for Keir Starmer.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Intended aim and actual success are not the same thing. Plus early days yet. A few months down the line, it'll be a flop, and an excuse to have THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE LABOUR AND THE LAWYERS turned up to 13 repeated for 24 months.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
It was a Lambeth audience.
So what ? It was literally the first question. "They need you to talk about it, instead of..." isn't working.
51% voted for either Macron or Le Pen in round one and 80% voted for one of Macron, Le Pen, Melenchon and Zemmour.
We can probably assume the bulk of Zemmour's support will swing behind Le Pen (say 90%). Those who didn't vote for either Macron or Le Pen in round one have four options - one, vote Macron. Two, vote Le Pen, Three. cast a blank vote or Four, don't turn up to vote.
In 2017, 52% of Melenchon's vote went to Macron, just 7% to Le Pen, 17% cast a blank vote and 24% abstained. Given there are 7.75 million Melenchon voters this time (just over 7 million last time). If 2 million or so Zemmour voters are going to vote for Le Pen, Macron needs at least a third of the Melenchon voters I would reckon to cancel that out.
Macron led Le Pen by 1 million after round one in 2017 - this time the lead is 1.7 million.
The remaining 20% of first round voters voted for other candidates (that's another 7 million). Last time Fillon's voters broke 48-20 for Macron, Hamon's broke 71-2 for Macron and Dupont-Aignan's broke 30-27 for Le Pen.
You'd think Lassalle and Dupont-Aignan's voters would probably move more to Le Pen but the others more likely to shift to Macron.
Given the number of Blank/Null ballots likely as well as abstentions, I reckon we're looking at 28 million second round voters splitting 16 million to Macron, 12 million to Le Pen which would be 57-43 and I reckon it won't be far off that.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
Indeed. Who knew that the UK were full of racists. Even ex pats in Spain
It would poll just as well in France - and you know it.
51% voted for either Macron or Le Pen in round one and 80% voted for one of Macron, Le Pen, Melenchon and Zemmour.
We can probably assume the bulk of Zemmour's support will swing behind Le Pen (say 90%). Those who didn't vote for either Macron or Le Pen in round one have four options - one, vote Macron. Two, vote Le Pen, Three. cast a blank vote or Four, don't turn up to vote.
In 2017, 52% of Melenchon's vote went to Macron, just 7% to Le Pen, 17% cast a blank vote and 24% abstained. Given there are 7.75 million Melenchon voters this time (just over 7 million last time). If 2 million or so Zemmour voters are going to vote for Le Pen, Macron needs at least a third of the Melenchon voters I would reckon to cancel that out.
Macron led Le Pen by 1 million after round one in 2017 - this time the lead is 1.7 million.
The remaining 20% of first round voters voted for other candidates (that's another 7 million). Last time Fillon's voters broke 48-20 for Macron, Hamon's broke 71-2 for Macron and Dupont-Aignan's broke 30-27 for Le Pen.
You'd think Lassalle and Dupont-Aignan's voters would probably move more to Le Pen but the others more likely to shift to Macron.
Given the number of Blank/Null ballots likely as well as abstentions, I reckon we're looking at 28 million second round voters splitting 16 million to Macron, 12 million to Le Pen which would be 57-43 and I reckon it won't be far off that.
I think that's fair - though even if Le Pen has a greater chance than that, surely those who think so are likely to have put money on her from the start, and many will have greened out around the time of the first round. Why risk your (my) winnings now ?
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Intended aim and actual success are not the same thing. Plus early days yet. A few months down the line, it'll be a flop, and an excuse to have THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE LABOUR AND THE LAWYERS turned up to 13 repeated for 24 months.
And it depends how narrow the target audience is.
It’s sad how utterly cynical the Tory government has become. They really don’t believe in anything positive at all, except for the laffer curve, being in power and not being labour.
The Rwanda policy has come about by working backwards from *Keir Starmer human rights lawyer*
Terrible politics from a once great political party.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
Fascinating. Who said anything about fascism? Putin isn't fascist. Johnson isn't fascist.
You know that you are describing yourself with that post don't you?
I would describe Putin as fascist. For me, the defining characteristics of fascist regimes are:
- nationalist ideology - military aggression, either through invasion or through aggressive sabre-rattling - internal repression - a contempt for democracy - a lack of ideological interest in economics or wealth distribution.
I'd say Putin ticks all those boxes. So for that matter does Xi in China.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
Indeed. Who knew that the UK were full of racists. Even ex pats in Spain
It would poll just as well in France - and you know it.
So they should do it too ? Rwanda is a country with a fifth of our population, and nearly twice the population density. We are nearly twenty times richer per capita. It is quite simply immoral.
A lovely afternoon in East London - I drop in for a quick perusal and it's all about the "I" word.
The problem with the immigration debate is it's a jungle of nuances, misconceptions, differing experiences and goes beyond simple economics to touch on deep-rooted cultural and social attitudes and mores.
In other words, it's complex.
History tells you any group of people moving into a new area changes that area fundamentally and regrettably often disadvantageously for the indigenous peoples - not always and the immediate impact might look very different compared with the perspective of decades later when a degree of integration has taken place.
Of course, many previous migrations were invasions when force was used to usurp the native population and take their land - nowadays, it's different but still seen in terms of economics - skills, the impact of cheaper labour on the wages of those already in place, housing costs etc.
The more difficult part is or has been the cultural - we started from a position of multi-culturalism and have moved away from that towards mono-culturalism. The expectation that migrants should be "more like us" in terms of language, dress and custom has a not insignificant level of support.
The counter argument we are all enriched from exposure to and experience of other cultures seems to have less traction - perhaps because human nature dictates people like people like themselves we find incoming groups coalescing into communities leaving the indigenous people feeling "surrounded" or taking the opportunity to sell up and leave to a different area. In some areas (Newham's not a bad example), you get communities within communities almost down to a street or neighbourhood level.
Is the issue then immigration or integration?
I don't get the "integration" argument. At all. Why should I care about how my neighbour lives their life? Mostly it doesn't affect me. If they take Saturday as a day of rest, or refuse to eat beef, or speak Polish, or wear lederhosen, or support Pakistan in the cricket, or eat Vegemite with everything, what business is it of mine? As long as they keep the noise down I don't feel much need to check up on how they're living their life.
Have just subscribed to F1.tv where they appear to have both feature-length season summaries and full races. An awful lot of full faces. I may be in trouble here...
Shouldn't you be out campaigning today? 👍
Not much point where he lives, tbh. Or so we all think! (Not a reflection on RP but recalling his comments on the local situation the other day.)
Back to real on-the-ground politics and Labour out and about in East Ham this morning.
As it's very likely they'll win both the Mayoral election and all 66 seats in a hack canter (to use a racing term), you might wonder why they bother dealing with the electorate at all.
More active in the streets are the "Independent" candidates who seem to be former members of the Labour Party who have been thrown out as part of the purge on Momentum and all its works. There's one standing in my Ward and we got his leaflet this morning.
Plenty of eye candy for the punters in terms of pledges but the one that stopped me was the pledge to freeze Council Tax for the next four years. Laudable, I thought, and if I'd seen it in a Conservative leaflet I wouldn't be surprised - hang on, that is actually a pledge of the Conservative mayoral candidate.
Neither Conservative nor Socialist Labour (two cheeks of the same proverbial it would seem) have detailed which services they will cut to keep the Council Tax down but clearly there's a commonality of policy here.
"Housing asylum seekers who have entered UK by unofficial means in purpose-built “reception centres” rather than hotels"
All voters Fair 56% Unfair 20%
Cons Fair 80% Unfair 5%
Labour Fair 33% Unfair 39%
YouGov March 21
Matthew "I don't understand the Government policy" Goodwin.
You cannot enter a country by legitimate means to gain asylum, how is this so difficult to understand!
You claim asylum at the border
You haven't entered the UK in that case - and where can you do that?
You can't do that. If "claim asylum at the border" was a route its just possible the people paying £10k to drown their children would pay £200 for a BA flight instead and claim it at Heathrow.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
Fascinating. Who said anything about fascism? Putin isn't fascist. Johnson isn't fascist.
You know that you are describing yourself with that post don't you?
I would describe Putin as fascist. For me, the defining characteristics of fascist regimes are:
- nationalist ideology - military aggression, either through invasion or through aggressive sabre-rattling - internal repression - a contempt for democracy - a lack of ideological interest in economics or wealth distribution.
I'd say Putin ticks all those boxes. So for that matter does Xi in China.
I don't want to pour cold water on your conclusions because I think you're right, but others have adopted more wide-ranging "tests" for fascism. I find lists like Umberto Eco's useful for distinguishing between fascism and other non-fascist forms of repressive dictatorships. It's possible not too important whether or not the label applies, obviously the consequences of policies and actions matter more, but here's a link to a more rigorous analytical framework in case it is of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
"Housing asylum seekers who have entered UK by unofficial means in purpose-built “reception centres” rather than hotels"
All voters Fair 56% Unfair 20%
Cons Fair 80% Unfair 5%
Labour Fair 33% Unfair 39%
YouGov March 21
Matthew "I don't understand the Government policy" Goodwin.
You cannot enter a country by legitimate means to gain asylum, how is this so difficult to understand!
You claim asylum at the border
You haven't entered the UK in that case - and where can you do that?
You can't do that. If "claim asylum at the border" was a route its just possible the people paying £10k to drown their children would pay £200 for a BA flight instead and claim it at Heathrow.
You can, but BA won’t transport you
Correct. It requires being able to enter the UK legally for a holiday, then claiming at the border. Those at Calais cannot enter without a visa, and wouldn’t get a visa. Which is why they are stuck.
I don't get the "integration" argument. At all. Why should I care about how my neighbour lives their life? Mostly it doesn't affect me. If they take Saturday as a day of rest, or refuse to eat beef, or speak Polish, or wear lederhosen, or support Pakistan in the cricket, or eat Vegemite with everything, what business is it of mine? As long as they keep the noise down I don't feel much need to check up on how they're living their life.
I'm not suggesting YOU do or indeed many people do.
However, Farage's infamous comment about the language he heard on trains did and does resonate especially among those who struggle to comprehend how an area with which they might have had a lifetime of association can change seemingly overnight.
That's the cultural impact - some people find the rapid change to their immediate vicinity difficult. Others take the view we're all human beings and it doesn't much matter to which God people choose to pray or how they dress or which language they use.
To clarify the issue further, it's not even about immigration but large scale immigration and we may think primarily of the impact that has on our country but it also has a huge impact on the countries from which the migrants have come.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Again, you're catastrophising. Putin's government murders and imprisons opponents, shuts down opposing media, practises electoral fraud, and at least in some places, winks at the murder of gays.
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
I have said several times that we are "on the path" not "we are the same". The stage gate is truth. Once you officially abolish truth anything is possible. And unless parliament censures him for repeatedly deliberately lying to them we are through that stage gate.
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
The stage gate is actually the willingness to use violence in place of playing by the rules of democracy. Someone like Trump is willing to do that (albeit half-heartedly) whereas this government is not.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
The first para I completely agree with and I guess I do as well re the 2nd para, but there is the subtleties of the lying. Most politicians will mislead or avoid the truth, but most won't out and out lie. I always think of Michael Howard and the Paxman interview. He was clearly misleading and avoiding the truth, but refused to out and out lie and that was his downfall. He was too honest. Boris or Trump would lie. They would be exposed later, but so what.
Yep, Johnson is different gravy on the lying. It's not a matter of him being just a bit worse on something we expect from politicians. He's not pushing the envelope with it, he's writing a new playbook. Or trying to anyway. And if he somehow gets the public to reelect him he'll have succeeded. Hence why GE24 is so very important imo. A country's self-respect is on the line. There were valid reasons for backing him in 2019. This time there won't be.
I haven't voted Conservative in a very long time, but I've never voted Labour. I will definitely do so this time around if they are the closest challengers to the Tories in my constituency. And that is not out of any particular fondness for Keir Starmer.
I'm becoming more confident.
Of course millions will vote Tory, there are lots who always do, but they need more than that to win. They need a big chunk of apolitical and floating voters too. This means people, not wedded to the Tories or massively anti Labour, assessing Boris Johnson as PM and going, "Ok, fine, keep going mate."
I don't see it happening. Last time those people might have wanted the Brexit impasse broken or been scared of Corbyn getting in (both very understandable reasons to opt for the Cons and Johnson) but this time? - I think we're down to "he's a bit of a laugh" and this won't cut it. Not unless we really have lost the plot, which I refuse to believe.
I can't see there being any issue with bringing successful asylum applicants to the UK, from Rwanda because there will be planes dropping other ones off, which would otherwise fly back empty.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
The phenomenon of seeing creeping fascism absolutely everywhere is one of the strangest aspects of modern Western politics.
Fascinating. Who said anything about fascism? Putin isn't fascist. Johnson isn't fascist.
You know that you are describing yourself with that post don't you?
I would describe Putin as fascist. For me, the defining characteristics of fascist regimes are:
- nationalist ideology - military aggression, either through invasion or through aggressive sabre-rattling - internal repression - a contempt for democracy - a lack of ideological interest in economics or wealth distribution.
I'd say Putin ticks all those boxes. So for that matter does Xi in China.
Sounds like Sinn Fein, we could soon have a fascist government in the british isles.
There's too much concern with this debate about 'genocide'. I don't know whether Putin or Russia are guilty of it but it is pretty clear that the mass murder of a civilian population is seen as a legitimate tactic of war. He doesn't appear remotely bothered by how many people he kills if they refuse to submit to his authority and are an impediment to achieving more territory and dominance. That's about as bad as it gets. Whether it counts as genocide I don't know.
Wikipedia:
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people — usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group — in whole or in part.
Oxford Dictionary of English:
genocide | ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd | noun [mass noun] the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group: a campaign of genocide | [count noun] : news of genocides went unreported.
Putin wants to completely destroy the nation of Ukraine. So Putin's War in Ukraine is genocide by any normal meaning of the word.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Intended aim and actual success are not the same thing. Plus early days yet. A few months down the line, it'll be a flop, and an excuse to have THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE LABOUR AND THE LAWYERS turned up to 13 repeated for 24 months.
And it depends how narrow the target audience is.
It’s sad how utterly cynical the Tory government has become. They really don’t believe in anything positive at all, except for the laffer curve, being in power and not being labour.
The Rwanda policy has come about by working backwards from *Keir Starmer human rights lawyer*
Terrible politics from a once great political party.
Middle para is right, I think. What we have here is another application of what worked so brilliantly at GE19, the People v Parliament gambit, or People v Metro Liberal Elites.
Just as Brexit was frustrated by Remainer MPs and the Lords and the Millers and the Pinko Lawyers, so will this 'tough love' Rwanda plan be fought tooth & nail by the same types.
I can't see there being any issue with bringing successful asylum applicants to the UK, from Rwanda because there will be planes dropping other ones off, which would otherwise fly back empty.
That is not what this scheme proposes. ‘Successful applicants’ will remain in Rwanda, as will the unsuccessful until or unless they are deported. We are basically offloading our asylum seekers on them, and they will be processed according to Rwandan asylum and immigration laws.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Intended aim and actual success are not the same thing. Plus early days yet. A few months down the line, it'll be a flop, and an excuse to have THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE LABOUR AND THE LAWYERS turned up to 13 repeated for 24 months.
And it depends how narrow the target audience is.
It’s sad how utterly cynical the Tory government has become. They really don’t believe in anything positive at all, except for the laffer curve, being in power and not being labour.
The Rwanda policy has come about by working backwards from *Keir Starmer human rights lawyer*
Terrible politics from a once great political party.
Middle para is right, I think. What we have here is another application of what worked so brilliantly at GE19, the People v Parliament gambit, or People v Metro Liberal Elites.
Just as Brexit was frustrated by Remainer MPs and the Lords and the Millers and the Pinko Lawyers, so will this 'tough love' Rwanda plan be fought tooth & nail by the same types.
Ah bisto. (they think)
The difference bis that there are some fairly robust, pro-Brexit people, both here and in the wider world, who would be OK with tough love, process in Rwanda and bring the worthy here, but really don't like the actual policy. Paying Rwanda to take its pick of our undesirables... it crosses a line.
That's before we get to the inherent absurdity. It might be that the greatest good for the greatest number is for opponents of this scheme to shrug, and wait for it to collapse under its own madness. Leave the courts out of it.
Doesn't the issue revolve around the question whether asylum seekers should have a choice as to where that asylum is? And the idea that expressing such a choice undermines their claim to be an asylum seeker?
We will in fact take a few migrants “back”, or even some who never got close to here. My guess is that this refers to people with medical or mental problems which rwanda cannot treat as well as we can.
We will in fact take a few migrants “back”, or even some who never got close to here. My guess is that this refers to people with medical or mental problems which rwanda cannot treat as well as we can.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
They don't need you to understand it, they need you to talk about it, instead of the prime minister's crimes or the huge queue of lorries resulting from Britain imposing economic sanctions on itself.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
Are they ? It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
Intended aim and actual success are not the same thing. Plus early days yet. A few months down the line, it'll be a flop, and an excuse to have THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE LABOUR AND THE LAWYERS turned up to 13 repeated for 24 months.
And it depends how narrow the target audience is.
It’s sad how utterly cynical the Tory government has become. They really don’t believe in anything positive at all, except for the laffer curve, being in power and not being labour.
The Rwanda policy has come about by working backwards from *Keir Starmer human rights lawyer*
Terrible politics from a once great political party.
Middle para is right, I think. What we have here is another application of what worked so brilliantly at GE19, the People v Parliament gambit, or People v Metro Liberal Elites.
Just as Brexit was frustrated by Remainer MPs and the Lords and the Millers and the Pinko Lawyers, so will this 'tough love' Rwanda plan be fought tooth & nail by the same types.
Ah bisto. (they think)
The difference bis that there are some fairly robust, pro-Brexit people, both here and in the wider world, who would be OK with tough love, process in Rwanda and bring the worthy here, but really don't like the actual policy. Paying Rwanda to take its pick of our undesirables... it crosses a line.
That's before we get to the inherent absurdity. It might be that the greatest good for the greatest number is for opponents of this scheme to shrug, and wait for it to collapse under its own madness. Leave the courts out of it.
I give it about a fortnight.
Yes, a good point. Just as the 'Surrender Bill' was a tactical mistake, so might getting too active and militant about this. It's a fair bet it'll implode all by itself.
I can't see there being any issue with bringing successful asylum applicants to the UK, from Rwanda because there will be planes dropping other ones off, which would otherwise fly back empty.
That is not what this scheme proposes. ‘Successful applicants’ will remain in Rwanda, as will the unsuccessful until or unless they are deported. We are basically offloading our asylum seekers on them, and they will be processed according to Rwandan asylum and immigration laws.
Yes, I have apprehended that. But my feeling is that if substantial numbers do end up going to Rwanda, the system will evolve as I've described. If they don't, it basically looks like they're going to be making a pre-judgement when people arrive in the UK, that if you don't look, walk, or quack like a genuine asylum seeker, you're going straight to Rwanda without passing go.
Comments
I look forward to Labour adopting that in their 2024 manifesto, and their subsequent wipe out in the ensuing election
Far from this government clamping down on dissenting voices, social media and mainstream media are full of people saying how crap this government is, without suffering any adverse consequences. You won't face adverse consequences for doing so, for example.
And, opposing trans self I/D does not come remotely close to anything that happens in Russia.
Sound familiar? As I said, its on the same trajectory as Russia - create a hostile environment for us in the LGBTQetc community is step 1. Then if they can get mouth-breathers shouting abuse at benders to wind up the lefties even better.
My party proposed gay equality when in government. David Cameron to his absolute credit took it on and made it government policy. Overrode the homophobes in the Tory ranks. All being undone because of "war on woke". Do you know anyone obsessed with attacking "woke" Mr Leon...?
But that doesn't mean we are inevitably headed to the gulags.
You know that you are describing yourself with that post don't you?
And J K Rowling, Hadley Freeman, Suzanne Moore, Joanne Cherry, and many many more, are on the Left
Once you can say any old shit and force people to accept it despite the evidence in front of them proving it to be a lie you can do anything you like. And as the aim is populism go for whatever raises the biggest cheer.
Of course right wing commentators don't want to accept the comparison, they think they are the good guys.
And give Francs an incentive, too, by linking the numbers accepted to a decrease in the number of crossings. It would might even be cheaper than paying them to ineffectively patrol beaches as we're doing now.
The other point about Rwanda is that it's considerably more 'overcrowded' than we are, with a population density nearly double. And far poorer.
The immorality of the scheme is blatant.
But if a frenchman, for example, wants to claim asylum in britain, he can simply travel as a tourist, and claim at Heathrow. In fact, there are signs upon disembarkation saying that your asylum claim may be damaged if you do not claim immediately, and telling you how to claim.
So your right to asylum is effectively mediated through your right to tourism, which makes no sense, admittedly.
Lying is what many politicans do, although Boris is certainly completely shameless about it. Plenty of countries are led by shameless liars (Italy is a good example) without being on the route to authoritarian government.
It will be interesting to see how people react after their summer holidays this year. The need to stamp passports will create Heathrowesque queues at most airports.
There is good news though! The new EES/ETIAS system is coming in the autumn, so back to biometric checks of your passport and entry visa. The only problem is that everyone has to be checked. Nobody seems to know how Eurotunnel will manage the border issue when the drive on / drive off functionality is no longer allowed.
Note that this argument does not mean we we should accept large numbers of economic migrants on a permanent basis. It means that the processing should be effective and humane and should be done by all countries equally bearing responsibility not just a few. We could still - if we wished - send back those who are judged not to be genuine refugees.
genocide is not proved, but there is a strong prima facie case for it - and it would certainly have met the Nuremberg threshold, where the Nazi treatment of Czechoslovakia (in addition to the treatment of its Jewish population) was charged as genocide.
"Rwanda: an imperfect but defensible plan
The outrage over the proposal misses the bigger point"
https://unherd.com/thepost/rwanda-an-imperfect-but-defensible-plan/
Someone else who hasn't grasped the plan.
A lovely afternoon in East London - I drop in for a quick perusal and it's all about the "I" word.
The problem with the immigration debate is it's a jungle of nuances, misconceptions, differing experiences and goes beyond simple economics to touch on deep-rooted cultural and social attitudes and mores.
In other words, it's complex.
History tells you any group of people moving into a new area changes that area fundamentally and regrettably often disadvantageously for the indigenous peoples - not always and the immediate impact might look very different compared with the perspective of decades later when a degree of integration has taken place.
Of course, many previous migrations were invasions when force was used to usurp the native population and take their land - nowadays, it's different but still seen in terms of economics - skills, the impact of cheaper labour on the wages of those already in place, housing costs etc.
The more difficult part is or has been the cultural - we started from a position of multi-culturalism and have moved away from that towards mono-culturalism. The expectation that migrants should be "more like us" in terms of language, dress and custom has a not insignificant level of support.
The counter argument we are all enriched from exposure to and experience of other cultures seems to have less traction - perhaps because human nature dictates people like people like themselves we find incoming groups coalescing into communities leaving the indigenous people feeling "surrounded" or taking the opportunity to sell up and leave to a different area. In some areas (Newham's not a bad example), you get communities within communities almost down to a street or neighbourhood level.
Is the issue then immigration or integration?
"Moreover, since research carried out by the Refugee Council suggests that 61 per cent of those arriving by boat win their asylum claims, then why the objection to them being safely processed in Kigali rather than risking the rough seas?"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/16/labours-hypocrisy-immigration-knows-no-bounds/
Unless there has been some clarification, as I understood the announcement, they would not be being processed in Kigali with a view to some of them (majority even?) coming back having been processed and assessed as a refugee. They are all staying there. It is one-way ticket as the Mail was making very clear all of yesterday.
Or am I missing something?
You know how dull and boring they are under Sanity Starmer.
And you're talking about it, so they're winning.
It's evidently not a particular popular policy - and judging from today's Any Questions, it's not provided much distraction from the PM's legal embarrassments either.
I will definitely do do this time around if they are the closest challengers to the Tories in my constituency. And that is not out of any particular fondness for Keir Starmer.
And it depends how narrow the target audience is.
It was literally the first question. "They need you to talk about it, instead of..." isn't working.
51% voted for either Macron or Le Pen in round one and 80% voted for one of Macron, Le Pen, Melenchon and Zemmour.
We can probably assume the bulk of Zemmour's support will swing behind Le Pen (say 90%). Those who didn't vote for either Macron or Le Pen in round one have four options - one, vote Macron. Two, vote Le Pen, Three. cast a blank vote or Four, don't turn up to vote.
In 2017, 52% of Melenchon's vote went to Macron, just 7% to Le Pen, 17% cast a blank vote and 24% abstained. Given there are 7.75 million Melenchon voters this time (just over 7 million last time). If 2 million or so Zemmour voters are going to vote for Le Pen, Macron needs at least a third of the Melenchon voters I would reckon to cancel that out.
Macron led Le Pen by 1 million after round one in 2017 - this time the lead is 1.7 million.
The remaining 20% of first round voters voted for other candidates (that's another 7 million). Last time Fillon's voters broke 48-20 for Macron, Hamon's broke 71-2 for Macron and Dupont-Aignan's broke 30-27 for Le Pen.
You'd think Lassalle and Dupont-Aignan's voters would probably move more to Le Pen but the others more likely to shift to Macron.
Given the number of Blank/Null ballots likely as well as abstentions, I reckon we're looking at 28 million second round voters splitting 16 million to Macron, 12 million to Le Pen which would be 57-43 and I reckon it won't be far off that.
Why risk your (my) winnings now ?
The Rwanda policy has come about by working backwards from *Keir Starmer human rights lawyer*
Terrible politics from a once great political party.
The three liable to leave your wallet depleted today run this evening:
SOULCOMBE 6.15 Nottingham
FORGE VALLEY LAD 7.30 Lingfield
LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY 7.45 Nottingham
- nationalist ideology
- military aggression, either through invasion or through aggressive sabre-rattling
- internal repression
- a contempt for democracy
- a lack of ideological interest in economics or wealth distribution.
I'd say Putin ticks all those boxes. So for that matter does Xi in China.
Rwanda is a country with a fifth of our population, and nearly twice the population density. We are nearly twenty times richer per capita.
It is quite simply immoral.
As it's very likely they'll win both the Mayoral election and all 66 seats in a hack canter (to use a racing term), you might wonder why they bother dealing with the electorate at all.
More active in the streets are the "Independent" candidates who seem to be former members of the Labour Party who have been thrown out as part of the purge on Momentum and all its works. There's one standing in my Ward and we got his leaflet this morning.
Plenty of eye candy for the punters in terms of pledges but the one that stopped me was the pledge to freeze Council Tax for the next four years. Laudable, I thought, and if I'd seen it in a Conservative leaflet I wouldn't be surprised - hang on, that is actually a pledge of the Conservative mayoral candidate.
Neither Conservative nor Socialist Labour (two cheeks of the same proverbial it would seem) have detailed which services they will cut to keep the Council Tax down but clearly there's a commonality of policy here.
It's possible not too important whether or not the label applies, obviously the consequences of policies and actions matter more, but here's a link to a more rigorous analytical framework in case it is of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
LAB: 38% (+1)
CON: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (-)
GRN: 7% (-)
via @YouGov, 13 - 14 Apr
https://t.co/WCXPp19q7D
However, Farage's infamous comment about the language he heard on trains did and does resonate especially among those who struggle to comprehend how an area with which they might have had a lifetime of association can change seemingly overnight.
That's the cultural impact - some people find the rapid change to their immediate vicinity difficult. Others take the view we're all human beings and it doesn't much matter to which God people choose to pray or how they dress or which language they use.
To clarify the issue further, it's not even about immigration but large scale immigration and we may think primarily of the impact that has on our country but it also has a huge impact on the countries from which the migrants have come.
Of course millions will vote Tory, there are lots who always do, but they need more than that to win. They need a big chunk of apolitical and floating voters too. This means people, not wedded to the Tories or massively anti Labour, assessing Boris Johnson as PM and going, "Ok, fine, keep going mate."
I don't see it happening. Last time those people might have wanted the Brexit impasse broken or been scared of Corbyn getting in (both very understandable reasons to opt for the Cons and Johnson) but this time? - I think we're down to "he's a bit of a laugh" and this won't cut it. Not unless we really have lost the plot, which I refuse to believe.
Oxford Dictionary of English:
noun [mass noun]
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group: a campaign of genocide | [count noun] : news of genocides went unreported.
Putin wants to completely destroy the nation of Ukraine. So Putin's War in Ukraine is genocide by any normal meaning of the word.
Just as Brexit was frustrated by Remainer MPs and the Lords and the Millers and the Pinko Lawyers, so will this 'tough love' Rwanda plan be fought tooth & nail by the same types.
Ah bisto. (they think)
‘Successful applicants’ will remain in Rwanda, as will the unsuccessful until or unless they are deported. We are basically offloading our asylum seekers on them, and they will be processed according to Rwandan asylum and immigration laws.
That's before we get to the inherent absurdity. It might be that the greatest good for the greatest number is for opponents of this scheme to shrug, and wait for it to collapse under its own madness. Leave the courts out of it.
I give it about a fortnight.
Sorry people, I really do like Nicola Sturgeon.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1515294410765971461
We will in fact take a few migrants “back”, or even some who never got close to here. My guess is that this refers to people with medical or mental problems which rwanda cannot treat as well as we can.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda