Why I still think LAB will struggle to get a majority – politicalbetting.com

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

So what?

Are human rights global and human? Or subject to an accident of geography?

Luckyguy1983 said:

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

National grid, for the first time, is to fire up 2 coal plants to keep the lights on

Cold weather often becalms wind power which I believe is an issue at present

Amazing to believe they've managed with only one in the decades previous.

It is an excellent form of energy, we should use a lot more of it - dig for victory.

It is a terrible form of energy. Dirty, obsolete and expensive.

There is a reason we don't use it much. Might as well say we should have more horse drawn carriages on the M6.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in selective school areas.

Over and out.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

So what?

Are human rights global and human? Or subject to an accident of geography?

I was explaining to you *why* they were not subject to the ECHR. The result is immaterial.

There is no good reason for human rights law to be settled on a European level so we are subject to the same rigorous standard as Moscow was at the start of 2022 but not the rest of the West's standard.

The ECHR has failed in its duty and is superseded anyway by other global agreements on human rights. We shouldn't feel we need to be bound to it just because an accident of geography puts us on the same continental shelf as Moscow.

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

The Princess of Wales is now the most popular senior royal after the Queen's death according to a new RedfieldWilton poll.

The Princess is on +52%, the Prince on +49%, the King on +27%, the Queen Consort on +1%, the Duke of Sussex on -22%, the Duchess of Sussex on -33% and the Duke of York on -53%

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633105355797323777?t=L0OklURtvkVfr85_tnB2dg&s=19

Nobody cares. Well I wish they didn't anyway. Vacuous nonsense.

This wil interest you then?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23367199.king-invites-privileged-bodies-swear-loyalty-crown/

' LEADING cultural and educational institutions - including Scotland's ancient universities - have been invited by the King to swear loyalty to him.

King Charles will received the so-called "privileged bodies” – a group of 27 organisations and corporations – which will present loyal addresses to the sovereign in person in the ballroom of Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Buckingham Palace said the privileged bodies are “culturally significant organisations and institutions that reflect the United Kingdom’s diverse society”.

Drawn from the education, science, arts and religious sectors, those invited include the General Synod of the Church of England, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as well as of Edinburgh, London, St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the Bank of England, City of London Corporation, the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Military Knights of Windsor and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

The loyal addresses – in the form of a speech – serve to “emphasise and reaffirm their loyalty to the monarch”, the Palace said.'

Funnily enough I don't find that too objectionable. It is a tradition that goes back centuries I suspect, including when the Stewarts ruled over us. What I object to is smarmy obsequiousness; the celebrity culture of the Daily Express applied to the monarchy. Euch.

Couldn't give a damn for which dynasty it was. It's all formalised obsequiousness. Think of the time and resources wasted on this.

The world devoid of arcane and sometimes absurd tradition would be a very dull one. Why do university professors troop into graduation ceremonies or formal dinners in the style of a black mass? Why do we have Black Rod? Why do Americans put their hand on their heart and swear allegiance to an inanimate object?

Chairman Mao would have approved of your sentiment though, and probably Pol Pot, oh and that German chap with the poor hairdresser.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

The UK was also one of the original architects of it and a signatory

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

The UK was also one of the original architects of it and a signatory

Indeed. And when it was originally designed it was originally supposed to be a Convention enforced domestically, not via an international Court that was so rigorous it had Russia as a full member 14 months ago.

Personally I wouldn't have called the last Russian elections free and fair, or their free press, what about you? But the ECHR allowed them to be full members and degenerate like that on their watch, with their seal of approval.

The ECHR is a failure and should not be relied upon.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

The Princess of Wales is now the most popular senior royal after the Queen's death according to a new RedfieldWilton poll.

The Princess is on +52%, the Prince on +49%, the King on +27%, the Queen Consort on +1%, the Duke of Sussex on -22%, the Duchess of Sussex on -33% and the Duke of York on -53%

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633105355797323777?t=L0OklURtvkVfr85_tnB2dg&s=19

Nobody cares. Well I wish they didn't anyway. Vacuous nonsense.

This wil interest you then?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23367199.king-invites-privileged-bodies-swear-loyalty-crown/

' LEADING cultural and educational institutions - including Scotland's ancient universities - have been invited by the King to swear loyalty to him.

King Charles will received the so-called "privileged bodies” – a group of 27 organisations and corporations – which will present loyal addresses to the sovereign in person in the ballroom of Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Buckingham Palace said the privileged bodies are “culturally significant organisations and institutions that reflect the United Kingdom’s diverse society”.

Drawn from the education, science, arts and religious sectors, those invited include the General Synod of the Church of England, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as well as of Edinburgh, London, St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the Bank of England, City of London Corporation, the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Military Knights of Windsor and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

The loyal addresses – in the form of a speech – serve to “emphasise and reaffirm their loyalty to the monarch”, the Palace said.'

Funnily enough I don't find that too objectionable. It is a tradition that goes back centuries I suspect, including when the Stewarts ruled over us. What I object to is smarmy obsequiousness; the celebrity culture of the Daily Express applied to the monarchy. Euch.

Couldn't give a damn for which dynasty it was. It's all formalised obsequiousness. Think of the time and resources wasted on this.

The world devoid of arcane and sometimes absurd tradition would be a very dull one. Why do university professors troop into graduation ceremonies or formal dinners in the style of a black mass? Why do we have Black Rod? Why do Americans put their hand on their heart and swear allegiance to an inanimate object?

Chairman Mao would have approved of your sentiment though, and probably Pol Pot, oh and that German chap with the poor hairdresser.

I agree with that. I was at a very traditional dinner last week with one of those London "worshipful companies" - the first black tie event I've been to in many years. It was full of old fashioned traditions including lots of banging of hammers, archaic language and people with odd titles wearing funny badges. All with a pretty diverse and multicultural clientele. It was very fun and much more memorable than a sit down meal in smart casual in a comfortable restaurant would have been.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in selective school areas.

Over and out.

No she put together a largely anti grammar school article which ignored the Bristol University research bright working class pupils do better in grammars than comprehensives.

I complained to her on twitter that as
a Tory, grammar school supporter I did not expect my license fee to be used to fund leftwing, anti grammar propaganda. She then tweeted me back at least

bigjohnowls said:

Latest red wall poll

Lab 51
Con 29

Redfield W

Lab wins all 40 seats included

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in non-grammar school areas.

Over and out.

And her second point is that remarkably few children from lower income families get into Grammar schools because of the games that are played by others to get admitted.

taking my old school

Deprived pupils

3% in the school
14% in the local authority

A problem created by the school allowing pupils to travel in from as far away as Harrow on the Hill (20 miles by train) instead of taking in local pupils.

Although it is going back donkey's years the same applied when I went to school. I lived in a much poorer area than most of the catchment for the Grammar school which had a lot of wealthy areas. Only 1 person went to the Grammar school from the ward I lived in, in my year, with many many going from the wealthier wards. Once we got to the 6th form and the bias of tutoring primary school pupils was no longer applicable about 10 of us transferred to the Grammar school from my ward. Many more from other poorer area. None from wealthy areas as far as I can remember.

The sad thing is the damage done by this type of biased selection as well as not taking into account youngsters develop at different stages and different rates. Lots of the Grammar school kids dropped out with hardly any O levels who had been pushed beyond their capability and a lot of my friends who were quite capable didn't transfer with me to the Grammar school as they were indoctrinated by this point that they should leave school and go out to work. Many would have easily coped with the A levels and then University and several eventually did get Engineering degrees with BAC (later British Aerospace) the major local employer, but many must have missed out.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

The UK was also one of the original architects of it and a signatory

Indeed. And when it was originally designed it was originally supposed to be a Convention enforced domestically, not via an international Court that was so rigorous it had Russia as a full member 14 months ago.

Personally I wouldn't have called the last Russian elections free and fair, or their free press, what about you? But the ECHR allowed them to be full members and degenerate like that on their watch, with their seal of approval.

The ECHR is a failure and should not be relied upon.

The reason we joined, and drafted, the ECHR was to set an example to the rest of Europe that had recently succumbed to barbarism.

However, given withdrawing from it will remove the unwarranted protections afforded to private property afforded by Protocol 1, Article 1 of the ECHR, allowing a future government to appropriate the land and property of the idle classes without compensation and redistribute it to the workers, then I would be in favour.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

So what?

Are human rights global and human? Or subject to an accident of geography?

You forgot the option fiction which is exactly what they are and countries will drop them like any so called right like a hot potato when it becomes to inconvenient.

In truth the only human right is the right to die....the one thing no government can take from you on a whim

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

Westie said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.

What is incorrect about what she is saying?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.

Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?

You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?

I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).

Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.

"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.

Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?

It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.

kjh said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in non-grammar school areas.

Over and out.

And her second point is that remarkably few children from lower income families get into Grammar schools because of the games that are played by others to get admitted.

taking my old school

Deprived pupils

3% in the school
14% in the local authority

A problem created by the school allowing pupils to travel in from as far away as Harrow on the Hill (20 miles by train) instead of taking in local pupils.

Although it is going back donkey's years the same applied when I went to school. I lived in a much poorer area than most of the catchment for the Grammar school which had a lot of wealthy areas. Only 1 person went to the Grammar school from the ward I lived in, in my year, with many many going from the wealthier wards. Once we got to the 6th form and the bias of tutoring primary school pupils was no longer applicable about 10 of us transferred to the Grammar school from my ward. Many more from other poorer area. None from wealthy areas as far as I can remember.

The sad thing is the damage done by this type of biased selection as well as not taking into account youngsters develop at different stages and different rates. Lots of the Grammar school kids dropped out with hardly any O levels who had been pushed beyond their capability and a lot of my friends who were quite capable didn't transfer with me to the Grammar school as they were indoctrinated by this point that they should leave school and go out to work. Many would have easily coped with the A levels and then University and several eventually did get Engineering degrees with BAC (later British Aerospace) the major local employer, but many must have missed out.

When we had more grammar schools we had more judges, PMs, senior army officers, CEOs, top professors, permanent secretaries and surgeons from state schools than we do now.

The damage was done removing most of them, not the reverse

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

Turnip head I was there , I know how hard it was.

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Listening to Sunak he certainly knows his detail as he did with the NIP in such a contrast to Johnson

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

The Princess of Wales is now the most popular senior royal after the Queen's death according to a new RedfieldWilton poll.

The Princess is on +52%, the Prince on +49%, the King on +27%, the Queen Consort on +1%, the Duke of Sussex on -22%, the Duchess of Sussex on -33% and the Duke of York on -53%

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633105355797323777?t=L0OklURtvkVfr85_tnB2dg&s=19

Nobody cares. Well I wish they didn't anyway. Vacuous nonsense.

This wil interest you then?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23367199.king-invites-privileged-bodies-swear-loyalty-crown/

' LEADING cultural and educational institutions - including Scotland's ancient universities - have been invited by the King to swear loyalty to him.

King Charles will received the so-called "privileged bodies” – a group of 27 organisations and corporations – which will present loyal addresses to the sovereign in person in the ballroom of Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Buckingham Palace said the privileged bodies are “culturally significant organisations and institutions that reflect the United Kingdom’s diverse society”.

Drawn from the education, science, arts and religious sectors, those invited include the General Synod of the Church of England, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as well as of Edinburgh, London, St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the Bank of England, City of London Corporation, the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Military Knights of Windsor and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

The loyal addresses – in the form of a speech – serve to “emphasise and reaffirm their loyalty to the monarch”, the Palace said.'

Pass the vomit buckets

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

The Princess of Wales is now the most popular senior royal after the Queen's death according to a new RedfieldWilton poll.

The Princess is on +52%, the Prince on +49%, the King on +27%, the Queen Consort on +1%, the Duke of Sussex on -22%, the Duchess of Sussex on -33% and the Duke of York on -53%

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633105355797323777?t=L0OklURtvkVfr85_tnB2dg&s=19

Nobody cares. Well I wish they didn't anyway. Vacuous nonsense.

This wil interest you then?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23367199.king-invites-privileged-bodies-swear-loyalty-crown/

' LEADING cultural and educational institutions - including Scotland's ancient universities - have been invited by the King to swear loyalty to him.

King Charles will received the so-called "privileged bodies” – a group of 27 organisations and corporations – which will present loyal addresses to the sovereign in person in the ballroom of Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Buckingham Palace said the privileged bodies are “culturally significant organisations and institutions that reflect the United Kingdom’s diverse society”.

Drawn from the education, science, arts and religious sectors, those invited include the General Synod of the Church of England, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as well as of Edinburgh, London, St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the Bank of England, City of London Corporation, the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Military Knights of Windsor and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

The loyal addresses – in the form of a speech – serve to “emphasise and reaffirm their loyalty to the monarch”, the Palace said.'

Pass the vomit buckets

It is an anachronism and increasingly past its sell by date

TimS said:

Are the Southerners here all looking forward to the snow tomorrow?

(And South Midlanders, South Welsh and any hermits living up on Dartmoor)

Snow all melted in the sunlight today here. Got that grubby look now.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in selective school areas.

Over and out.

No she put together a largely anti grammar school article which ignored the Bristol University research bright working class pupils do better in grammars than comprehensives.

I complained to her on twitter that as
a Tory, grammar school supporter I did not expect my license fee to be used to fund leftwing, anti grammar propaganda. She then tweeted me back at least

So a few very lucky children do better while the rest miss out.

Show me an academic paper that shows ALL lower income pupils do better (on average) in areas with grammar schools and I may accept they are a good idea.

But I bet you can't because it isn't the case and some people have been trying to prove that very fact for 40 years...

malcolmg said:

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Get a bloody street round here. With change.

dixiedean said:

malcolmg said:

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Get a bloody street round here. With change.

that would get you a semi detached in Amersham....

dixiedean said:

malcolmg said:

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Get a bloody street round here. With change.

Way back in the day, there were some house in a fun part of the country going for a pound. Some suggested that the purchase price should really include the cost of the armoured vehicle required to actually get to your property.

dixiedean said:

malcolmg said:

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Get a bloody street round here. With change.

Not quite a street, but you would be able to buy eight houses for that in Chadsmoor.

Interesting that Sunak will put an annual cap on legal migration

He also said the quotes of max 200 to be sent to Rwanda is untrue and there is no limit

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

Interesting grammar school article, discussing how non grammar school kids perform worse than in areas without selection, while grammar schools remain the preserve of the middle class.

Appalling article from the BBC there which I tweeted the journalist concerned to complain about.

Completely ignored evidence from Bristol University that working class pupils get better GCSE results at grammar schools than pupils of similar ability do in comprehensive
schools

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp

I have not posted for a good few days now, and I didn't intend to for a while. However when @HYUFD dived in with his boots on to promote his idiotic Grammar School ideology, I bit.

I don't know how many times I have engaged in a futile response to your demand for Grammar Schools, and it is a waste of my time and yours, so I really shouldn't bother, but when you attacked the BBC's Branwen Jeffries who is a genuine expert in the field of education and has been for decades, I decided I had to call you out. She provided decent evidence, which you ignored, and carefully selected your own (behind a paywall) evidence which didn't address her point.

Her point was those failing the 11 plus in grammar school areas are left behind compared to those who attend schools in non-grammar school areas.

Over and out.

And her second point is that remarkably few children from lower income families get into Grammar schools because of the games that are played by others to get admitted.

taking my old school

Deprived pupils

3% in the school
14% in the local authority

A problem created by the school allowing pupils to travel in from as far away as Harrow on the Hill (20 miles by train) instead of taking in local pupils.

Although it is going back donkey's years the same applied when I went to school. I lived in a much poorer area than most of the catchment for the Grammar school which had a lot of wealthy areas. Only 1 person went to the Grammar school from the ward I lived in, in my year, with many many going from the wealthier wards. Once we got to the 6th form and the bias of tutoring primary school pupils was no longer applicable about 10 of us transferred to the Grammar school from my ward. Many more from other poorer area. None from wealthy areas as far as I can remember.

The sad thing is the damage done by this type of biased selection as well as not taking into account youngsters develop at different stages and different rates. Lots of the Grammar school kids dropped out with hardly any O levels who had been pushed beyond their capability and a lot of my friends who were quite capable didn't transfer with me to the Grammar school as they were indoctrinated by this point that they should leave school and go out to work. Many would have easily coped with the A levels and then University and several eventually did get Engineering degrees with BAC (later British Aerospace) the major local employer, but many must have missed out.

When we had more grammar schools we had more judges, PMs, senior army officers, CEOs, top professors, permanent secretaries and surgeons from state schools than we do now.

The damage was done removing most of them, not the reverse

At the cost of the vast majority of the kids who got dumped in rotten secondary moderns, in particular the poor kids, but hey ho keep privileges for the privileged.

There are no secondary moderns anymore, there are many failing comprehensives however

bigjohnowls said:

bigjohnowls said:

Latest red wall poll

Lab 51
Con 29

Redfield W

Lab wins all 40 seats included

JBC fans please explain

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Chris said:

Nigelb said:

Chris said:

SouthamObserver said:

numbertwelve said:

Strikes me that the Small Boats bill is about 75% calculated to give the Tories a line against the ECHR at the next GE and 25% towards helping Cruella’s 2024 leadership ambitions.

If it were me, I would not be trusting this to Suella Braverman. Her ability is spectacularly limited.

What does it mean that she thinks that there is a more than 50% chance it is incompatible with the ECHR but that she is confident that it is compatible with international law.

Can any PB legal eagles suggest a way in which this is anything other than gibberish?

Here's a clue.
Having sat through 1 hour and 45 minutes of @SuellaBraverman statement on her new #IllegalMigrationBill we still don’t get to see the actual text of the Bill until later this afternoon. And apparently no impact assessment is available with the Bill today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DianaJohnsonMP/status/1633119075185446915

I was asking a genuine question, though.

Is there some way in which it can be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights but still compatible with "international law"?

I've no idea.

Given it's Braverman, the statement has no substantive meaning. Let's wait for analysis of the actual legislation.

Not sure how this bill works and I expect legal challenges

I hope Sunak and Macron, who have a much improved relationship, are able to work together to address the issue

Macron is under enormous pressure as he tries to raise the French retirement age to 64. Under these circumstances he's (sadly) likely to prefer a fight with les rosbif to drum up a bit of positive publicity.

On balance, is it just in both of their interest for us to have a small war and declare a score draw a few weeks later?

NEW THREAD

TimS said:

dixiedean said:

TimS said:

Are the Southerners here all looking forward to the snow tomorrow?

(And South Midlanders, South Welsh and any hermits living up on Dartmoor)

Snow all melted in the sunlight today here. Got that grubby look now.

Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

Not forecast for here, although there's lots forecast for tomorrow evening.

eek said:

dixiedean said:

malcolmg said:

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

.

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Why should they succeed, though?

Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.

We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.

But why can't we house everyone?

It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.

This.

The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.

Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.

The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?

I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.

Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.

As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both

The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.

YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.

Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.

The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.

The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.

BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?

It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.

The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.

Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.

Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.

Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.

Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)

St Albans is north of Watford.

A three bed semi towards the edge of the city in the catchment area of one of the best state secondary schools is on the market for £1,150,000.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132193331

You would get at least 3 nice 4 bed detached's for that in God's country.

Get a bloody street round here. With change.

that would get you a semi detached in Amersham....

An ex council house in Barnes