Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The fight for Nadine’s seat hots up even though there’s no vacancy – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 28 in General
imageThe fight for Nadine’s seat hots up even though there’s no vacancy – politicalbetting.com

Even though Johnson is still PM and we are 11 days away from us knowing a successor at least three parties have already started knocking on doors and delivering leaflets in the Mid-Beds seat where Nadine Dorries is the MP.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.07 Liz Truss 93%
    14 Rishi Sunak 7%
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    Felixstowe strike exposes the true colours of militant union barons
    Confected outrage is more about bringing down the Government than helping workers

    Perhaps it was only a matter of time before Felixstowe port found itself in the grip of a crisis. After all, someone at the terminal’s parent company – possibly after being repeatedly hit round the head with a large, wet fish – thought it was a good idea to employ Chris Grayling as a “strategic adviser”, on £100,000 a year for just seven hours a week work no less.

    “Strategic” is not necessarily a word that springs to mind when looking back on Grayling’s highlights reel as a Cabinet minister. In fact you would struggle to find a less strategic act than his decision to award a £14m ferry contract to a firm that had no ferries, while serving as transport secretary, though there is a wealth of alternative material to choose from in Grayling’s case.

    The selection of outsourcing giant Carillion to run prison maintenance when the company was on the brink of collapse, during his time as justice secretary, must come a close second.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/23/felixstowe-strike-exposes-true-colours-militant-union-barons/ (£££)

    Well, I thought it was funny, including the enormo-haddock reference.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    edited August 24
    Exam results for non-binary pupils could be recorded separately
    Currently GCSE and A-level students are only categorised as boys or girls

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/23/exam-results-non-binary-pupils-could-recorded-separately/ (£££)

    Spox for the pressure group Sex Matters complains this will mean losing data when comparing boys with girls. This sounds like nonsense to me, since we do not know how trans candidates are currently recorded. A better objection might be that in less popular subjects, with small schools, it risks identifying individual students.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    Six months today, since this damn war started.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 25
    What, you mean that in the new Cabinet the extraordinary talents of Nad and Mogg would not be used?
    Oh wait, you mean that they should never been allowed anywhere near a ministerial post and salary in the first place.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,084
    The New York special election result is a promising straw in the wind for the Democrats.
    And Crist wins comfortably in the primary to challenge DeSantis; rival says she’s prepared to run on his ticket.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/23/florida-new-york-primaries-august-23-00053400
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134
    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734
    Nigelb said:
    Christ that's incredibly distasteful, Oz is going to be walloped
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    These numbers are going to seem quaint by 2040. Most people still haven’t clicked what a future of +40° summers and changing rainfall patterns in the developing world are going to mean for migration flows. And it’s Generation Woke that will need to decide how to deal with it.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,428

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    I agree that France is the only party that can stop this so find out what France wants to do that and give it to them.

    They don't need 'help' in the Mediterranean as the vast majority of asylum seeker traffic is either Libya/Tunisia to Lampedusa (so Italy's problem) or Algeria/Morocco to Spain.

    The government don't have the fortitude for a full Australian style Operation Sovereign Borders operation with tow backs and offshore detention so it'll have to be the French solution.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.07 Liz Truss 93%
    14 Rishi Sunak 7%

    Do the more successful punters on here expect the prices to narrow as the close of this contest approaches? It does sound as if Sunak has converted some at the hustings. It must be very difficult to be sure that surveys of the voters of such an odd electorate are representative. Presumably the on line votes will available at the press of a button but the paper ones will take a while to count though as poll closes at 5pm on Friday why is the result not announced until Monday? How many of each type are expected.? Will the Conservative party actually give the numbers or just the percentages?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734
    Very good results for the Democrats indeed from upstate New York. Not just winning NY19, NY23 outperforming too. These were Trump districts.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Those 2,478 Green voters look tasty. Hope the LD boffins know who they are.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,381
    moonshine said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    These numbers are going to seem quaint by 2040. Most people still haven’t clicked what a future of +40° summers and changing rainfall patterns in the developing world are going to mean for migration flows. And it’s Generation Woke that will need to decide how to deal with it.

    Perhaps they are Generation Woke in part because they are aware of how these kinds of issues are looming over them. I agree though, most people really haven't clocked that we are heading for a world of unprecedented population movements, certainly unlike anything that has been seen since the nineteenth century. It will dominate politics, alongside the climate issue more broadly. I worry that it might precipitate a descent into a new kind of fascism built around ideas like the Great Replacement theory.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134
    moonshine said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    These numbers are going to seem quaint by 2040. Most people still haven’t clicked what a future of +40° summers and changing rainfall patterns in the developing world are going to mean for migration flows. And it’s Generation Woke that will need to decide how to deal with it.

    It's income & ambition, not desperation & vulnerability, that drives mass-migration.

    There's effectively a salary floor for it at the moment.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,138
    Did not know that Nadine's seat contained the tremendous golf course of Woburn - played there last year - amazing experience - the golf course must be one of the most stunning inland courses in the world
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Independence is normal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    I agree that France is the only party that can stop this so find out what France wants to do that and give it to them.

    They don't need 'help' in the Mediterranean as the vast majority of asylum seeker traffic is either Libya/Tunisia to Lampedusa (so Italy's problem) or Algeria/Morocco to Spain.

    The government don't have the fortitude for a full Australian style Operation Sovereign Borders operation with tow backs and offshore detention so it'll have to be the French solution.
    And they all cross the Med and many of them end up in France.

    I'm under no illusions that migrants scarpering from near Calais into Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands is in France's interests (they don't want them) but killing the people smuggler's business model, taking only vulnerable refugees that are genuine (and a quota at that) and co-operating in tackling the problem at source all seem like wins to me.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734
    Icarus said:

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.07 Liz Truss 93%
    14 Rishi Sunak 7%

    Do the more successful punters on here expect the prices to narrow as the close of this contest approaches? It does sound as if Sunak has converted some at the hustings. It must be very difficult to be sure that surveys of the voters of such an odd electorate are representative. Presumably the on line votes will available at the press of a button but the paper ones will take a while to count though as poll closes at 5pm on Friday why is the result not announced until Monday? How many of each type are expected.? Will the Conservative party actually give the numbers or just the percentages?
    Poll samples are never perfect but the chance Sunak is actually ahead is incredibly small.
    It'd be a bigger polling failure than the Michigan 2016 Democratic primary, which is the biggest polling failure I can find
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    edited August 24

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    Felixstowe strike exposes the true colours of militant union barons
    Confected outrage is more about bringing down the Government than helping workers

    Perhaps it was only a matter of time before Felixstowe port found itself in the grip of a crisis. After all, someone at the terminal’s parent company – possibly after being repeatedly hit round the head with a large, wet fish – thought it was a good idea to employ Chris Grayling as a “strategic adviser”, on £100,000 a year for just seven hours a week work no less.

    “Strategic” is not necessarily a word that springs to mind when looking back on Grayling’s highlights reel as a Cabinet minister. In fact you would struggle to find a less strategic act than his decision to award a £14m ferry contract to a firm that had no ferries, while serving as transport secretary, though there is a wealth of alternative material to choose from in Grayling’s case.

    The selection of outsourcing giant Carillion to run prison maintenance when the company was on the brink of collapse, during his time as justice secretary, must come a close second.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/23/felixstowe-strike-exposes-true-colours-militant-union-barons/ (£££)

    Well, I thought it was funny, including the enormo-haddock reference.

    The problem with the militant trade union line is that strikes can only take place after a secret ballot of union members in which a majority have to vote for action. Union members in places like Felixstowe are ordinary, usually working class, men and women after nothing more than a salary that will allow them to support their families. If they didn’t feel strike action was their only option they would not withdraw their labour.

    It does feel like the Tories are trying to resurrect the workers vs the Unions narrative of the 80s. It won't work. Yes most workers aren't in a union, so won't be coming out in solidarity. But with bills soaring and money worth less and less, we're going to see civil unrest if Mistress Truss continues to sniffily say "no handouts".
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 349

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,428

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    Nobody would go on the boat if didn't end up in Kent either.

    An off shore processing centre just becomes a de facto and massive refugee camp so who is going to sign up to host that?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    moonshine said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    These numbers are going to seem quaint by 2040. Most people still haven’t clicked what a future of +40° summers and changing rainfall patterns in the developing world are going to mean for migration flows. And it’s Generation Woke that will need to decide how to deal with it.

    My prediction is that the centre-left are going to become immigration-skeptics.

    Evidence: Danish Social Democrats. And to a lesser extent Swedish Social Democrats. Other examples surely exist.

    Incidentally, tomorrow voting opens for the Swedish general election. I don’t mean postal voting, I mean normal physical voting. Although “Polling Day” is not until Sunday 11 September, we’re allowed to nip down to the local (fantastically stocked) library and express our democratic will from tomorrow. If we change our minds before 11 September we just turn up then and that vote is the one that counts.

    If only I knew who to vote for…

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    Nobody would go on the boat if didn't end up in Kent either.

    An off shore processing centre just becomes a de facto and massive refugee camp so who is going to sign up to host that?
    I hear you re Kent. I heard of a boat that ended up on Camber Sands, just in East Sussex, and the passengers asked for their money back. No one wants to end up in Sussex. Since their Duke left it has become as lawless as the places the refugees are fleeing.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
    I want to like Tom Lehrer. I’ve even tried. I failed.

    I understand that it is very very clever. I understand that he is extremely talented. But I’m sorry, it’s just not that funny.

    Is it a US thing? An age thing? A humour failure on my part?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,485
    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    If we did think that WW III started 8 years ago, then the attack begun this year is probably the Barbarossa of this war.
    Right now it looks like Russia is finished as a great power as it descends towards open fascism and an increasingly likely civil war or even civil wars.
    Putin unprovoked attack looks more and more like a catastrophic miscalculation.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Cicero said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    If we did think that WW III started 8 years ago, then the attack begun this year is probably the Barbarossa of this war.
    Right now it looks like Russia is finished as a great power as it descends towards open fascism and an increasingly likely civil war or even civil wars.
    Putin unprovoked attack looks more and more like a catastrophic miscalculation.
    I hope you’re right. I love the Europe of 57 varieties (Estonia, Montenegro, Wallonia, Wales, Cyprus, Catalonia, Poland, England, Denmark etc etc etc). So much preferable to the monotony of bully boy unitary pseudo-empires.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    On topic I can only hope this story is right. Mad Nad and JRM deserve the square root of F all for their efforts and contributions but I for one would happily give them a seat in the Lords if it means that they are no longer in Cabinet and no longer screwing up whatever they are put in charge of. My apprehension is that this is not true and that these 2 numpties will also be a part of the new regime.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
    I want to like Tom Lehrer. I’ve even tried. I failed.

    I understand that it is very very clever. I understand that he is extremely talented. But I’m sorry, it’s just not that funny.

    Is it a US thing? An age thing? A humour failure on my part?
    Yes.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
    Scots forces took part in nearly every French action, including of course the decisive Siege of Orléans.

    No Scots = no French victory = England retaining her continental possessions

    Scots caused English exceptionalism. Discuss.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177
    DavidL said:

    On topic I can only hope this story is right. Mad Nad and JRM deserve the square root of F all for their efforts and contributions but I for one would happily give them a seat in the Lords if it means that they are no longer in Cabinet and no longer screwing up whatever they are put in charge of. My apprehension is that this is not true and that these 2 numpties will also be a part of the new regime.

    Good morning one and all.
    While I agree with Mr Mr L's general opinion the problem with sending people to the Lord is that they get a great deal more than the square root of et cetera.
    And they hang around politics contributing their bizarre views.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    As you say, the whole system isn't fit for purpose. How we fix it depends on what realities politicians are willing to accept. The current lot have made hay by stoking the fires of parochial bigotry in small town England. They won't change. But once we have a change of government I hope we can all have a sensible conversation.

    The west will be facing a big migration wave as the world heats and poorer countries struggle. So a number of things we can do:
    1. Develop poorer countries. Vast solar farms across the more arid parts. Generates power for domestic AC to make the climate more tolerable. Creates jobs. Exports power to the west.
    2. Actually co-operate with our neighbours. Stop treating Europe as the enemy - we need them.
    3. Treat migration as an opportunity. Who do we want, where do we want them? We have so many unfillable jobs - offer work visas for specific areas. Migrants likely to accept poorer living standards than locals, so can fit them in. We need so many new brains, new ideas, new technologies which we can then exploit and sell. Your ex-Nigerian should be welcome.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Indeed. But if it’s nuclear holocaust that worries you (and it should), I’d be more concerned by hillbillies voting for Gael-offspring Trump.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
    I want to like Tom Lehrer. I’ve even tried. I failed.

    I understand that it is very very clever. I understand that he is extremely talented. But I’m sorry, it’s just not that funny.

    Is it a US thing? An age thing? A humour failure on my part?
    Yes.
    Magnanimous as ever.

    You are of course correct. All my fault.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DavidL said:

    On topic I can only hope this story is right. Mad Nad and JRM deserve the square root of F all for their efforts and contributions but I for one would happily give them a seat in the Lords if it means that they are no longer in Cabinet and no longer screwing up whatever they are put in charge of. My apprehension is that this is not true and that these 2 numpties will also be a part of the new regime.

    Best case scenario:
    JRM is made Lord JRM as resported
    JRM is appointed Levelling Up Secretary. From the Lords.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
    Scots forces took part in nearly every French action, including of course the decisive Siege of Orléans.

    No Scots = no French victory = England retaining her continental possessions

    Scots caused English exceptionalism. Discuss.

    No. Doesn't even need a discussion. It's nonsense. Apart from anything else, Orleans was not 'decisive' except insofar as if the French hadn't won then France would have been completely subdued. I don't believe there were any Scots at all in the genuinely decisive battles of the 1440s and Formigny and Castillon later.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    Nice touch by Boris at Number 10: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-62647630
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259

    DavidL said:

    On topic I can only hope this story is right. Mad Nad and JRM deserve the square root of F all for their efforts and contributions but I for one would happily give them a seat in the Lords if it means that they are no longer in Cabinet and no longer screwing up whatever they are put in charge of. My apprehension is that this is not true and that these 2 numpties will also be a part of the new regime.

    Good morning one and all.
    While I agree with Mr Mr L's general opinion the problem with sending people to the Lord is that they get a great deal more than the square root of et cetera.
    And they hang around politics contributing their bizarre views.
    Agreed. We should abolish it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,954

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    DavidL said:

    Nice touch by Boris at Number 10: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-62647630

    That’s rather lovely. :cry:

    Ukranians really notice these gestures - things that seems meaningless or virtue signalling to us, come across very differently to those actually caught up in the war. It tells them that they are not being forgotten.

    Same goes for the Ukranian flags at sporting events, jacket pins worn by people on TV or in Parliament, even social media banners. Keep it up everyone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Indeed. But if it’s nuclear holocaust that worries you (and it should), I’d be more concerned by hillbillies voting for Gael-offspring Trump.
    Slightly eccentric jump from claiming the Scots won the Hundred Years War to claiming World War III will be started by a Scotsman.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
    Scots forces took part in nearly every French action, including of course the decisive Siege of Orléans.

    No Scots = no French victory = England retaining her continental possessions

    Scots caused English exceptionalism. Discuss.

    There’s no such thing as English exceptionalism. The 100 Years War was a dynastic conflict between two branches of the same family. Your outmoded concept of nationalism, rooted in the 19th century, had little or no relevance in the 14th and 15th centuries.

    In any event, the Scots contribution was exemplified by the disastrous Battles of Cravant and Verneuil where the limitations of Scots forces were brutally exposed and their contributions were limited thereafter.



  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    edited August 24
    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
    I want to like Tom Lehrer. I’ve even tried. I failed.

    I understand that it is very very clever. I understand that he is extremely talented. But I’m sorry, it’s just not that funny.

    Is it a US thing? An age thing? A humour failure on my part?
    Yes.
    Magnanimous as ever.

    You are of course correct. All my fault.
    More seriously Stuart they are of their time and it is a time I remember with affection. My parents used to buy bootleg tape recordings of them in Singapore at the market and we would listen to them when I was young (I wasn't allowed to listen to the Vatican Rag for years). They have happy memories for me in the way that similar stuff like Noel Coward simply doesn't and I wouldn't bother to listen to. The startling thing is that more than 50 years on so many of the issues he discusses seem completely contemporaryn: pollution of water courses, education, nuclear war, the absurdity of religion, etc.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,954

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
    Scots forces took part in nearly every French action, including of course the decisive Siege of Orléans.

    No Scots = no French victory = England retaining her continental possessions

    Scots caused English exceptionalism. Discuss.

    There’s no such thing as English exceptionalism. The 100 Years War was a dynastic conflict between two branches of the same family. Your outmoded concept of nationalism, rooted in the 19th century, had little or no relevance in the 14th and 15th centuries.

    In any event, the Scots contribution was exemplified by the disastrous Battles of Cravant and Verneuil where the limitations of Scots forces were brutally exposed and their contributions were limited thereafter.
    In the interests of pedantry, it was not between 'different branches of the same family.' It was between the closest living relative of Philip the Fair and the closest male line relative.

    The issue being the latter had only seized power due to a very blatant stitch up that set aside claims through the female line to ensure the King of England (who certainly had the best claim under the law as it stood) couldn't inherit the French throne. They were obsessed about that to the extent of giving up the personal Union with Navarre where different rules applied (although doubts about the legitimacy of the heiress of Navarre may have helped).

    Incidentally a similar manoeuvre by Edward III himself was part of the issue in the Wars of the Roses.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,817

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    As you say, the whole system isn't fit for purpose. How we fix it depends on what realities politicians are willing to accept. The current lot have made hay by stoking the fires of parochial bigotry in small town England. They won't change. But once we have a change of government I hope we can all have a sensible conversation.

    The west will be facing a big migration wave as the world heats and poorer countries struggle. So a number of things we can do:
    1. Develop poorer countries. Vast solar farms across the more arid parts. Generates power for domestic AC to make the climate more tolerable. Creates jobs. Exports power to the west.
    2. Actually co-operate with our neighbours. Stop treating Europe as the enemy - we need them.
    3. Treat migration as an opportunity. Who do we want, where do we want them? We have so many unfillable jobs - offer work visas for specific areas. Migrants likely to accept poorer living standards than locals, so can fit them in. We need so many new brains, new ideas, new technologies which we can then exploit and sell. Your ex-Nigerian should be welcome.
    Question is, what is our priority? There are several options, but we can't have them all.

    It could be to stop the small boats. That could easily be done by having safe legal routes in. But that comes up against...

    It could be to keep numbers right down, preferably to zero. The Hunger Games route in probably helps there, though it does nothing about the "get a tourist visa than vanish" route. That implies the real issue is...

    We don't want to see it happening. The small boats are visible, and the failure to catch them is humiliating.

    Also, a lot of the attraction of the UK is that it's normal not to have papers, which is convenient if you are unofficial or you wish to employ them. But We The British are allergic to ID checks for us.

    It's very on-brand for this government to deny the tradeoffs, and very on-brand for us as a society to not want to inconvenience ourselves at all.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Tom Lehrer will make a comeback with 'So Long Mom.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo
    I want to like Tom Lehrer. I’ve even tried. I failed.

    I understand that it is very very clever. I understand that he is extremely talented. But I’m sorry, it’s just not that funny.

    Is it a US thing? An age thing? A humour failure on my part?
    Yes.
    Magnanimous as ever.

    You are of course correct. All my fault.
    More seriously Stuart they are of their time and it is a time I remember with affection. My parents used to buy bootleg tape recordings of them in Singapore at the market and we would listen to them when I was young (I wasn't allowed to listen to the Vatican Rag for years). They have happy memories for me in the way that similar stuff like Noel Coward simply doesn't and I wouldn't bother to listen to. The startling thing is that more than 50 years on so many of the issues he discusses seem completely contemporaryn: pollution of water courses, education, nuclear war, the absurdity of religion, etc.
    Weirdly, I think Coward is still funny. He has many imitators (including Lehrer), but few peers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    More seriously the Royal Mile is starting to smell putrid. Rats on the streets cannot be far behind and, for once, I don't mean the tourists.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,134
    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Yes, the existing asylum system is (essentially) global free movement constrained only by money to get here and the creativity of the claim. And we know how the other free movement of people ended up last time it was tested.

    Asylum needs to be qualified and capped and not an unconstrained right. Or, at least, it needs to be if existing Western democratic polities are to survive in their present form.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,954

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
    She's from the centre-left. Stuart Dickson seems to think it's the direction parties like the SNP will go in.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    Do you run a factory making these straw men. I haven’t mentioned the SN bloody P once in my post. Bigoted Scots, be they Rangers fans, Cricket administrators, or schools, are nothing to do with the SNP or the English or the Tory party. They are the product of bigoted elements of Scottish society.

    I didn’t mention the SNP. You did. Try reading posts before you launch into your blinkered rants.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338
    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    Although it should be noted that almost every battle the Scots took part in ended badly for them - e.g. Neville's Cross. Even when they won, as at the otherwise fairly minor Battle of Baugé, they still managed to cock things up by letting the English survivors escape and rally elsewhere.
    Scots forces took part in nearly every French action, including of course the decisive Siege of Orléans.

    No Scots = no French victory = England retaining her continental possessions

    Scots caused English exceptionalism. Discuss.

    There’s no such thing as English exceptionalism. The 100 Years War was a dynastic conflict between two branches of the same family. Your outmoded concept of nationalism, rooted in the 19th century, had little or no relevance in the 14th and 15th centuries.

    In any event, the Scots contribution was exemplified by the disastrous Battles of Cravant and Verneuil where the limitations of Scots forces were brutally exposed and their contributions were limited thereafter.
    In the interests of pedantry, it was not between 'different branches of the same family.' It was between the closest living relative of Philip the Fair and the closest male line relative.

    The issue being the latter had only seized power due to a very blatant stitch up that set aside claims through the female line to ensure the King of England (who certainly had the best claim under the law as it stood) couldn't inherit the French throne. They were obsessed about that to the extent of giving up the personal Union with Navarre where different rules applied (although doubts about the legitimacy of the heiress of Navarre may have helped).

    Incidentally a similar manoeuvre by Edward III himself was part of the issue in the Wars of the Roses.
    Erm…okay
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    As you say, the whole system isn't fit for purpose. How we fix it depends on what realities politicians are willing to accept. The current lot have made hay by stoking the fires of parochial bigotry in small town England. They won't change. But once we have a change of government I hope we can all have a sensible conversation.

    The west will be facing a big migration wave as the world heats and poorer countries struggle. So a number of things we can do:
    1. Develop poorer countries. Vast solar farms across the more arid parts. Generates power for domestic AC to make the climate more tolerable. Creates jobs. Exports power to the west.
    2. Actually co-operate with our neighbours. Stop treating Europe as the enemy - we need them.
    3. Treat migration as an opportunity. Who do we want, where do we want them? We have so many unfillable jobs - offer work visas for specific areas. Migrants likely to accept poorer living standards than locals, so can fit them in. We need so many new brains, new ideas, new technologies which we can then exploit and sell. Your ex-Nigerian should be welcome.
    Question is, what is our priority? There are several options, but we can't have them all.

    It could be to stop the small boats. That could easily be done by having safe legal routes in. But that comes up against...

    It could be to keep numbers right down, preferably to zero. The Hunger Games route in probably helps there, though it does nothing about the "get a tourist visa than vanish" route. That implies the real issue is...

    We don't want to see it happening. The small boats are visible, and the failure to catch them is humiliating.

    Also, a lot of the attraction of the UK is that it's normal not to have papers, which is convenient if you are unofficial or you wish to employ them. But We The British are allergic to ID checks for us.

    It's very on-brand for this government to deny the tradeoffs, and very on-brand for us as a society to not want to inconvenience ourselves at all.
    Agree with all of that. We can't discuss any sane solutions because the insane has been promoted too hard. People are still banging on about how with One More Push we can finally deport the unwanted to Rwanda. With the only snag being that Rwanda won't accept them.

    I understand the concerns of some people about migration. Genuinely. Some parts of the UK have been transformed by it, and change drives fear drives hatred. The problem is that whilst parts have been negatively changed by migration, others have been negatively changed by the removal of migration. We genuinely need quite a lot of people in various sectors and regions. But can't have them because the good people in sparsely populated Lincolnshire are described as "full" by their MP.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,150
    DavidL said:

    Rats on the streets cannot be far behind and, for once, I don't mean the tourists.

    Rats have “taken over” and replaced mice as the main vermin in Edinburgh, a pest controller has said, as the strike by refuse workers dragged on into its sixth day https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rats-take-over-as-rubbish-piles-up-in-edinburgh-bin-strike-fc0gsvcz3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1661276319
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,381

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    If you think a bin bag makes a good football you've obviously either never seen a binbag or never played football. The bag is far too big and it deflates almost immediately.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    Sandpit said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.
    We haven't been generous to Ukrainians - the opposite is true. Uniquely in Europe we didn't just welcome them in. We said "no, you must apply for a visa, made the process massively impossible, opened the few who got in to exploitation by perverts, and then have left them homeless.

    Compare and contrast the treatment of Ukrainian refugees across Europe - numbers, process, welcome - and then look at the "don't call us, we won't call you either" signs and website we threw at their women and children as they attempted to flee for their lives.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
    It’s the English, has to be the English, no one outside this country could possibly be nasty to foreigners.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    edited August 24

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a huge sum to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Nice touch by Boris at Number 10: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-62647630

    That’s rather lovely. :cry:

    Ukranians really notice these gestures - things that seems meaningless or virtue signalling to us, come across very differently to those actually caught up in the war. It tells them that they are not being forgotten.

    Same goes for the Ukranian flags at sporting events, jacket pins worn by people on TV or in Parliament, even social media banners. Keep it up everyone.
    Yes I was rather impressed by that display. Nice touch.

    @Sandpit how is your property in Ukraine. I know this is less important than life, but it must be a worry.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,799
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    Rats on the streets cannot be far behind and, for once, I don't mean the tourists.

    Rats have “taken over” and replaced mice as the main vermin in Edinburgh, a pest controller has said, as the strike by refuse workers dragged on into its sixth day https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rats-take-over-as-rubbish-piles-up-in-edinburgh-bin-strike-fc0gsvcz3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1661276319
    Rats have either a far shorter life and maturity cycle than even I was aware of or the explosion of rats occurred some point before the refuse worker's strike began...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.
    Like I said on the last thread, we should send all illegal immigrants to Sweden and get Stuart to talk to them.

    Five minutes with him and they won't want to come to Britain any longer...
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
    It’s the English, has to be the English, no one outside this country could possibly be nasty to foreigners.
    Don't talk nonsense. *Everyone* has xenophobes in their midsts. Its just that most don't elect a government to enact their wishes.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,381

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.
    We haven't been generous to Ukrainians - the opposite is true. Uniquely in Europe we didn't just welcome them in. We said "no, you must apply for a visa, made the process massively impossible, opened the few who got in to exploitation by perverts, and then have left them homeless.

    Compare and contrast the treatment of Ukrainian refugees across Europe - numbers, process, welcome - and then look at the "don't call us, we won't call you either" signs and website we threw at their women and children as they attempted to flee for their lives.
    Meanwhile people on here are saying we should let in zero refugees, which means no help for Ukrainians at all.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a fuck if a lot to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
    I’ll just leave “… you gibbons on that fucking island…” there for those who need it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,482
    DavidL said:

    Nice touch by Boris at Number 10: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-62647630

    Did he do it himself?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a huge sum to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
    Far better solutions than ours are available. We just need the imagination to look at them.

    So, back to the point. You pinned the blame on the council. Who point to their slashed budget from the government. Can you accept that is a genuine problem? For *all* councils whichever party runs them?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
    It’s the English, has to be the English, no one outside this country could possibly be nasty to foreigners.
    Don't talk nonsense. *Everyone* has xenophobes in their midsts. Its just that most don't elect a government to enact their wishes.
    So the English elected the Danish government, Our evil spreads far!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    edited August 24
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Nice touch by Boris at Number 10: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-62647630

    That’s rather lovely. :cry:

    Ukranians really notice these gestures - things that seems meaningless or virtue signalling to us, come across very differently to those actually caught up in the war. It tells them that they are not being forgotten.

    Same goes for the Ukranian flags at sporting events, jacket pins worn by people on TV or in Parliament, even social media banners. Keep it up everyone.
    Yes I was rather impressed by that display. Nice touch.

    Sandpit how is your property in Ukraine. I know this is less important than life, but it must be a worry.
    Thanks. It got all the windows replaced last week - at double the pre-war price for some reason... Inside repairs are ongoing, but it wasn’t yet fitted out so not much for us to do there. We will leave it like that until hostilities end, say a prayer it doesn’t get damaged again, and then hope we can find interior fit-out people at what will be a time of somewhat high demand - sending a pile of foreign currency into their economy in the process.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a fuck if a lot to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
    I’ll just leave “… you gibbons on that fucking island…” there for those who need it.
    I was unclear which fucking island he was referring to. Great Britain? But that includes his beloved Scotland. And if we're gibbons, doesn't that mean he was deported to a foreign zoo...?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    Rats on the streets cannot be far behind and, for once, I don't mean the tourists.

    Rats have “taken over” and replaced mice as the main vermin in Edinburgh, a pest controller has said, as the strike by refuse workers dragged on into its sixth day https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rats-take-over-as-rubbish-piles-up-in-edinburgh-bin-strike-fc0gsvcz3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1661276319
    The volume of rubbish created by the Festival (and I don't mean the street theatre) is immense. The problem is becoming genuinely acute.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,723
    On English vs Scottish attitudes to immigration the data suggests:

    1. They are pretty similar
    2. Most people are reasonably positive about immigration

    This survey was done back in 2018:

    https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/social-welfare/pdfs/non-secure/d/o/s/do-scotland-and-england-and-wales-have-different-views-about-immigration-18.pdf

    Immigration is well down the list of stated concerns in recent surveys. It temporarily jumped around 2015-2016 coinciding with blanket news coverage of the European migrant crisis and the aftermath of the Arab spring. It is back down again.

    There is simply not the evidence to suggest Britain (North or South of the border) is a seething mass of anti foreigner resentment. This is a meme indulged in as a joint venture between both right wing commentators and left wingers or separatists who view England/Britain as a uniquely racist country.

    As for Stuart’s Rangers fans response, was there were ever a more literal demonstration of the no true Scotsman fallacy?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a fuck if a lot to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
    I’ll just leave “… you gibbons on that fucking island…” there for those who need it.
    I was unclear which fucking island he was referring to. Great Britain? But that includes his beloved Scotland. And if we're gibbons, doesn't that mean he was deported to a foreign zoo...?
    He’s unhinged. He takes any criticism of Scotland as criticism of the SNP. Meaning he literally conflates an entire nation with a single party which is…interesting. Presumably everyone not in or voting for the SNP are said primates.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.
    The UK hasn't been at all generous to Ukrainian refugees. It makes it fantastically difficult for them to get here and treats them like shit when they do.
    Speaking truth to power. Respect.

    They are way, way, way, way up their own arses.

    The Oaf and fucking sunflowers. Puhrleese.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.
    We haven't been generous to Ukrainians - the opposite is true. Uniquely in Europe we didn't just welcome them in. We said "no, you must apply for a visa, made the process massively impossible, opened the few who got in to exploitation by perverts, and then have left them homeless.

    Compare and contrast the treatment of Ukrainian refugees across Europe - numbers, process, welcome - and then look at the "don't call us, we won't call you either" signs and website we threw at their women and children as they attempted to flee for their lives.
    You are of course, in your first paragraph, talking of our own, dear Dura Ace!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    Notable how so many of the PBers critical of English attitudes to migrants actually live in empty, all white northern Scotland, or even emptier Sweden

    So many of our current problems come from the fact that England - southern England especially - has too many people and not enough infrastructure to support them. From housing to sewage, we are overcrowded

    And then there are the other problems brought by mass immigration, which are uncomfortable for middle class liberals to talk about, but nonetheless exist

    Enough. If the UKG doesn’t get a grip on this then the voters will seek a government that does. And it won’t be Labour

    In this light Brexit will be seen as merely the opening shot
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,723
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because

    their proposed answer to your "how many" question is "zero".
    Gentle tip: I ignore any post from you with “forrin” in it.

    Gentle tip: I don't care one way or the other. If posters dislike the image being reflected in the mirror being held up, don't blame the mirror.
    The problem comes when the mirror is one of those distorted ones from the fairground.

    Look at how generous the UK has been to tens of thousands of Ukranians seeking shelter over the past six months, and tens of thousands more from Hong Kong.


    The UK hasn't been at all generous to Ukrainian refugees. It makes it fantastically difficult for them to get here and treats them like shit when they do.
    We’re hosting a Ukrainian and I would say she’s been treated very well by most organisations she’s coming into contact with: the refugee council, the job centre, HMRC, even the home office have been OK, if a little bureaucratic.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    What do you think of the Danish government's position on these questions? The PM has just linked immigration to crime and said "there is too large a group that is not part of Denmark".
    I don't think anything of it. Would need to read the danish comments in full - not your parsee of it - and understand what is happening in their country.

    So, back to the attitude of southern Brits to migration...
    Danish PM singles out foreigners as government plans clampdown on gangs

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20220822/danish-pm-singles-out-foreigners-as-government-plans-clampdown-on-gangs/

    Danish prime minister wants country to accept ‘zero’ asylum seekers

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20210122/danish-prime-minister-wants-country-to-accept-zero-asylum-seekers/
    Sounds like dog-whistle politics ahead of a general election which I expect she will lose.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?"
    It’s the English, has to be the English, no one outside this country could possibly be nasty to foreigners.
    Don't talk nonsense. *Everyone* has xenophobes in their midsts. Its just that most don't elect a government to enact their wishes.
    So the English elected the Danish government, Our evil spreads far!
    Again, I haven't said that "the English are racists", so the straw man fell apart as you erected it. Its like when you use the word "gammon" to describe that acutely puce colour that certain angry usually balding blokes go. "Racism" they say - nope, because it isn't a racial trait, or being aimed at a whole race, or being a blanket lazy trope. Its a literal description of the colour the person it is aimed as goes.

    So, no "the English" aren't racist. *Certain English voters* in certain constituencies are xenophobes on this particular topic. Other nationalities have their own angry gammony ranters, its just that they usually aren't in government.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,817

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    So now bigoted Unionists are the fault of the SNP?

    Hmm… a bit like the piles of rubbish in Edinburgh being nothing to do with the Lab-LD-Con council but all the fault of the SNP.

    Racism in Scottish cricket? Not the fault of Conservative board members. All the SNP.

    St George’s School discriminating against brown MI6 hero? All the SNP’s fault. Nothing to do with the bigoted English parents.

    Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    The exciting thing about the mess is Auld Reekie is that a bin bag is a perfect political football. The council point to the budget cut by the government. The government point to local spending being the responsibility of the council. Both probably wave generally southwards and blame Westminster.

    In reality? Its everyone's fault.
    Hate to be a bore, but this is another thing the Nordic countries do extraordinarily well and you gibbons on that fucking island so appallingly.

    Give local government proper tax powers, and trust the electorate to kick the fuckers out if they abuse said powers.

    Here in Sweden, most folk pay zilch PAYE to central government, but a fuck if a lot to the local council and the region (which includes healthcare by the way). Only the wealthy pay significant income tax to central government.

    It is terrific. All 3 of my votes on 11 September really mean something. I am almost certainly going to split my votes between two or three parties. The chimps running the council for example have just gotta go, whereas I may well vote for one of those parties at Riksdag level.
    Two problems.

    One, going back at least to Maggie and the Rates Cap, is that Westminster simply doesn't trust anyone else with tax raising powers. My father stopped being a local councillor nearly twenty years ago- even then, the discretion on council budgets was pretty tiny. Most of the income was from central government, the Council Tax element wasn't easy to meaningfully vary, and most of the spending was fairly long-term contracts on statutory services. It's all got worse since then.

    That, in turn, is partly because FPTP with council wards isn't great at kicking out councils that go mad. It can happen, but a lot of local elections are about something else. And then you get a vicious circle where governments "save" electroates by reducing the freedom of councils to do stuff, so the elections become more pointless, and we all circle the plughole.
This discussion has been closed.