All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
No, it's a derelict processing centre for asylum seekersLeon said:I’m my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
0 -
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.RochdalePioneers said:What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.1 -
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere.boulay said:
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.NickPalmer said:
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.boulay said:
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.CJtheOptimist said:
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.0 -
Brilliant. Its the decaying concrete mansion of a significant pre-symbolist poet
Not much noom, to be honest, but what a place and what a nice story
And you can sit on his stone bench - a fallen menhir - and gaze at this frankly glorious beach
1 -
Right thinking people? Surely some mistake?Dura_Ace said:
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.RochdalePioneers said:What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.0 -
A poll in the Sunday Times has Andy Street 2% ahead. Not sure if it's one we've seen before.1
-
Saint-Pol-Roux Manor. Tragic backstory very fitting for the wilds of Brittany.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??2 -
Seriously beautiful here and utterly unanticipated. Nice1
-
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.2 -
I think it’s better to point out that current threats to safety in Rwanda, e.g. spillover from the fighting in DRC, rather than referring back 30 years ago to the genocide. Would you have said West Germany in 1975 can’t possibly be safe because it was 30 years on from the worst genocide ever?Richard_Tyndall said:
I would suggest that I should be taken more seriously than you on this topic if only because I am actually backed up by our treaty obligations whereas you are quite content to trash them and suffer the consequences.Casino_Royale said:
Err, no it isn't. You're quite a economically and constitutionally right-wing English nationalist who ameliorates this by having a totally open flank on migration and asylum, no doubt partly influenced by some political "heritage" in your extended family and the need to define yourself against that.Richard_Tyndall said:
This is exactly the way we should be doing things.spudgfsh said:
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
Fair enough. I'd feel conflicted by that too. But that's no reason to listen seriously to you on this subject, in the same way I don't for Simon Jenkins on defence or foreign policy - but do on many other matters.
I also have the basic intellect (it doesn't actually take much) to find it somewhat perverse to pass a law declaring a country safe that has, in my adult lifetime, suffered one of the worst genocides in modern history.
But, yes, it is clearly perverse to pass a law saying somewhere is safe, regardless of the facts on the ground.1 -
It is the remains of Saint-Pol Roux ManorLeon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Pol-Roux2 -
Most people don't support open borders. (I supported the idea for a short time in the late 1990s when I was in the sixth form).Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.1 -
Was Brittany caught up in the Innocent III wars against heresy that were centred in the south.Richard_Tyndall said:
Saint-Pol-Roux Manor. Tragic backstory very fitting for the wilds of Brittany.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??0 -
Actually to be fair I do, although I am not in this argument as that is not the point of the discussion. The problem with Rwanda for me is a combination of passing a law declaring it safe (The Emperor's New Clothes) and abrogating our international treaty commitments by declaring no right of return even if the asylum application is sucessful.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Oh and making it about open borders as if that were the question when we are letting in 1.4 million people a year anyway.
3 -
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
2 -
Merci. Yes just reading about it. Fantastiqueviewcode said:
It is the remains of Saint-Pol Roux ManorLeon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Pol-Roux
Taken with the megaliths and the beach as an ensemble - and they are all psycheographically related - that’s serious noom. Easily a 6, maybe close to 71 -
Deep alarm in the SNP at the prospect of Humza Yousaf doing any sort of deal with Alex Salmond.
If he is half-hearted with Alba, they say no. If he caves, there will be a rebellion.
“He’s f***** it,” says one of the FM’s allies.
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/17845642480241668961 -
It is Terry Practhett’s birthday today.2
-
I am ambivalent about the Rwanda scheme, I don't think I know enough of the detail about it. Whatever, it seems a very expensive means if deterrent for something that many are saying will not work.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
Personally I can't understand the thought processes of the boat people. If I was given a choice between crossing the English channel on a souped up airbed or going to Rwanda, I think my first option would be Rwanda, it feels much less dangerous. I understand that many of them can't even swim.0 -
https://youtu.be/DwbHDdSl3ocLeon said:
Merci. Yes just reading about it. Fantastiqueviewcode said:
It is the remains of Saint-Pol Roux ManorLeon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Pol-Roux
Taken with the megaliths and the beach as an ensemble - and they are all psycheographically related - that’s serious noom. Easily a 6, maybe close to 70 -
I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)1 -
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.bondegezou said:I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)0 -
I suspect that he is right and that that interview was the straw that broke the Camel's back for many SNP MSPs. Enough, just enough.CarlottaVance said:“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1784514989413290219
What I am less clear about is whether the Greens are capable of putting up an entirely united front on this. It seems to me that Humza's best chance is that one or more Greens will break ranks and either vote with the SNP or abstain. One vote for or two abstentions would be enough.
Salmond's broader point is that this then arises every time that there is a vote on anything. He's right but a deal with Alba, who have a single vote is not really enough to provide any form of stability. There has to be a real chance of one or more SNP MSPs standing down in the foreseeable future, certainly well before 2026. Yousaf needs more than Salmond can offer.2 -
I wasn’t specifically referring to you. Plenty in labour do.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.0 -
malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.0 -
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.1 -
Name 5 Labour MPs who do, with evidence.Taz said:
I wasn’t specifically referring to you. Plenty in labour do.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.1 -
"You can write them a letter."NickPalmer said:
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere.boulay said:
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.NickPalmer said:
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.boulay said:
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.CJtheOptimist said:
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.2 -
Ah, some honesty on the left!Dura_Ace said:
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.RochdalePioneers said:What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
It's about shifting incentives - simple enough to understand for most.1 -
The number of people coming over on boats, although it has been going up and up under the Conservatives, remains small compared to other forms of immigration. So, no, they are not one and the same thing.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.0 -
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.Andy_JS said:
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.bondegezou said:I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.0 -
Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
9 -
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.2 -
A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?0 -
We’ve now had 4 polls this month. These put the Labour lead at +14, +3, -2, +6. Street will be happy to be ahead in one poll, but Labour must still be the favourite.Taz said:
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.Andy_JS said:
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.bondegezou said:I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
It’s interesting in this new poll that it has a high Con vote share, but also still a high Reform UK vote share.1 -
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t tryDonkeys said:
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral1 -
Complete bolloxlegatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.0 -
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).Richard_Tyndall said:
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.2 -
Fair enough. Some people are quite mad enoughbondegezou said:
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).Richard_Tyndall said:
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
1 -
DOH there is only one person "HIM", he would have less than 50% if all others voted against him. No way could he brass it out after that.partypoliticalorphan said:A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?0 -
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.legatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.0 -
1
-
Hey, it's at least more creative than usual.Taz said:Absolute state of these clowns.
https://x.com/xr_londonrebels/status/1784231268697117034?s=612 -
True that, Its always the SNP that gets blamed. Hardly fair really. Especially when the Libs had the Lib-Lab pact.Theuniondivvie said:
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.legatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.0 -
This bit in Wiki was great.Leon said:
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t tryDonkeys said:
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral
'Saint-Pol-Roux is the archetypal "forgotten poet". It was under this title that he was a dedicatee of André Breton's Clair de Terre (also dedicated to "ceux qui comme lui s'offrent le magnifique plaisir de se faire oublier (sic)", or "those who like him offered themselves the great pleasure of making themselves forgotten"), and Vercors's Le Silence de la mer (calling him "le poète assassiné", or "the assassinated poet")'
Words to live by.0 -
Dog looks knackeredIanB2 said:Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.2 -
I thought it was Frank Maguire, the Independent Shinner, who "abstained in person".Taz said:
True that, Its always the SNP that gets blamed. Hardly fair really. Especially when the Libs had the Lib-Lab pact.Theuniondivvie said:
Funny how the LDs (or Libs as was) get a hospital pass in Sunny Jim: our part in his downfall. I suppose that's what comes with decades of no one giving a feck about what they did.legatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.0 -
If I were an authoritarian regime (one of those that likes to make believe it is not authoritarian, so allows some level of liberties) I'd have the obviously corrupt but also just badly run official post office, which everyone knew opened and read their mail, but also allow several alternative 'private' entities which the casual dissenter at least might think is more reliable, but are fact is also run by the state and reads their mail.JosiasJessop said:
"You can write them a letter."NickPalmer said:
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere.boulay said:
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.NickPalmer said:
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.boulay said:
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.CJtheOptimist said:
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.
I should expect most authoritarian regimes are even better than that, thesedays they can read dystopian fiction (or reports from North Korea, as if there's much difference) to get ideas and refine their efficient cruelties further.1 -
Part of life's rich tapestry I guess.Taz said:Absolute state of these clowns.
https://x.com/xr_londonrebels/status/1784231268697117034?s=61
Look at their earnest expressions. What are they, a heady mix of boredom, decadence and mental illness?0 -
Where are you??IanB2 said:Me and the dog are going to have suntans after today. We spent the morning in the hot sun walking the path of a Roman aqueduct, which amazingly supplied the town with fresh water from 2,000 years ago through to 1944, when the supply got breached by wartime fighting. You can see the line of the aqueduct on the right of the photo; close up, most of the brickwork is still there.
This afternoon demands lying under a tree and reading a book, until it cools down for our evening passeggiata.
0 -
'they were quickly able to explain that...'? I would have expected the average plod would have had them banged up for hours while they waited for the the men in white coats to arrive.bondegezou said:
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).Richard_Tyndall said:
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.1 -
Perun:
New American Military Aid for Ukraine - What's in the package and what impact will it have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM1 -
Random fact (as I was looking at some info on First Ministers), according to wiki there are only 2 Leader/Chief Ministers of a devolved government/overseas territories of the UK who have been in place for more than 4 years - Bermuda (6 Years), and Gibraltar (12 years).
Of the UK and Crown Dependencies it's 2.5 years (Isle of Man), clearly this is a time of great change!0 -
I have listed all the things we need to do to get anyone onto a plane. We haven't done those things. And this government won't do these things because it is incompetent.Dura_Ace said:
Israel has sent thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda so it's balls to claim that it's impossible.RochdalePioneers said:What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.
Obviously, like all right thinking people, I don't want Rwanda to work because I despise the tories and want them to fail miserably at everything but there is at least a chance that it might.
What does Israel managing to do different things have to do with it? We can't intern people prior to deportation because we don't have anywhere to intern them. What does Israel have to do with that?1 -
Keep posting the good ones Andy!Andy_JS said:A poll in the Sunday Times has Andy Street 2% ahead. Not sure if it's one we've seen before.
Why do all the supporters of the Rwanda disgrace accuse those who oppose it of being advocates of an open border policy? That is simply untrue. There are better alternatives to Rwanda.Andy_JS said:
Most people don't support open borders. (I supported the idea for a short time in the late 1990s when I was in the sixth form).Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.0 -
There's much more about that site.Leon said:
I always find everything. You’re an idiot. My Noomdar is world class, I am drawn to it even if don’t tryDonkeys said:
OMFG Leon, you've found the place I mentioned but wouldn't tell you about. That site is seriously important.Leon said:Oh my word. I came here to ends of the worlds for the noom of the Lagatjar alignments. As many of us do
They were ok. Modest noom factor 2. But now I walk on the sea shore and I see this. wtf is this? Is this UNEXPECTED MAJOR NOOM??
Amazing story behind that ruined poet’s mansion. Death and rape and Nazis and despair. Plus the megaliths right behind and these stupendous sea stacks and golden sands and remains of human life from 200,000BC!!
Noom 7.7 or higher. I don’t say that lightly. That’s up there with a decent medieval cathedral0 -
This is a test. Last time I tried to post a picture from my phone it failed, whereas it worked from my laptop. This will either be blank or a picture of my dog. If blank then why?
1 -
Perun has been excellent throughout this crisis. Truly superb.MattW said:Perun:
New American Military Aid for Ukraine - What's in the package and what impact will it have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM1 -
He needs a majority to pass a budget.partypoliticalorphan said:A question on the Scottish Parliament that puzzles me. The SNP have not had a majority in the Parliament for most of their years holding the FM position.
The electoral system is designed to make a majority of MSPs extremely difficult. On that basis, FM could be 'No Confidenced' and lose at almost any time. As I understand it, when the Parliament selects a First Minister, the successful candidate only needs to achieve more votes than any other person, not a majority.
Therefore, other than the obvious weakened position of losing a No Confidence vote, if Yousaf can keep his SNP MSPs on board why not simply tough it out?
Fat Eck managed a minority government by getting other parties to vote for his budgets.
Yousless, on the other hand, is complete fucked.1 -
Street is popular to be fair. If this was a unknown Tory, Labour would probably win reasonably comfortably.Taz said:
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.Andy_JS said:
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.bondegezou said:I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
Having said all that, there is evidence that the Labour Party has problems in the W Midlands.0 -
My argument is the Government's Rwanda policy is not the answer to stopping the boats. You seem to believe this one trick pony will stop the boats.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable.
The Rwanda policy will be sold as a victory via smoke and mirrors. I accept it is a success as far as the Daily Mail is concerned already.0 -
malcolmg said:
Complete bolloxlegatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
It just happens to be true.malcolmg said:
Complete bolloxlegatus said:malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.
Despite the fact that the SNP had its own partnership with the Tories in March 1979 when they combined to bring down Callaghan and open the door for Thatcher? Salmond was happy to rely on Tory support for his minority Administration post 2007 - and ,of course, the SNP - along with the LDs - paved the way for Johnson to call the December 2019 election!malcolmg said:
If they do not get rid of Useless and a good few other no users they are doomed anyway. They need to get away from the nutters and move to the left of centre again. The nutters are running the show at present and the majority are just there to pick up big salaries for being nodding donkeys.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot see the SNP replacing Yousaf with either Forbes or Regan as that would see a huge change in policies including on gender recognition, climate change, and North Sea oil exploration.HYUFD said:Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
Of course you are correct if that did happen the conservatives would be the losers, but a right leaning SNP is highly unlikely
PS: many will never vote Labour given their partnership with Tories in 2014.1 -
Very late model, more gériatique terrible, in fact. Being a reactionary in your sixties is more Alf Garnett than Albert Camus.Mexicanpete said:
Fair play, Casino believes the Rwanda rubbish is the answer. Leon on the other hand is merely a late model enfant terrible.RochdalePioneers said:What really makes me giggle about the Rwanda obsession of Leon and Casino is that they are talking about this imagined fantasy solution.
RWANDA! The land of plenty who will accept hundreds of thousands of our unwanted invading aliens
RWANDA! The simple solution which so terrifies people travelling halfway across the world that they will not come here
RWANDA! Cheap, effective, permanent. That Tory majority of 704 is within reach, we just need to battle the libs and lefty lawyer woke hang-wringing yoghurt-knitting morons until it is done.
Even if we set aside the reality that Rwanda won't accept more than a small number, to actually deport them we would first need to catch them, and then intern them, and then process them through the courts system, and then put them onto a plane to leave.
As the government have taken zero steps to do any of those things we find ourselves in the laughable position where on paper Rwanda is now safe and the flights can start, and yet there is no timetable or detailed plan to actually do anything.
Had Sunak spent the cash to convert RAF Wherever to a gulag, spent the cash beefing up Border Force, spent the cash in the Home Office staff needed, spent the cash creating capacity in the courts to be able to get anyone onto a plane then maybe I could understand L&C's excitement.
But they haven't done any of that. The only cash spent has been in Rwanda to build accommodation for refugees which the Rwandans have already disposed of.
So even if we set aside the legal and moral questions and just look at straightforward practical actions, this isn't happening. A crayon policy being talked up by intelligent people who have somehow persuaded themselves that chanting "I believe in Rwanda" will actually translate to Stop The Boats if they chant it hard enough.1 -
The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.1 -
It's ok. It's not the first time a picture of a dog has been posted on the site 👍kjh said:
Yeah. Sorry for the random post.kjh said:This is a test. Last time I tried to post a picture from my phone it failed, whereas it worked from my laptop. This will either be blank or a picture of my dog. If blank then why?
1 -
John Harris has become a very often superb columnist:
…About 15 years ago, our politics was briefly unsettled by a surge in support for the neofascist British National party. At the general election of 2010, the BNP proposed “a halt to all further immigration”, “the deportation of all illegal immigrants” and the end of what it called “the ‘asylum’ swindle”. As well as pulling Britain out of the EU, it said it would repeal “far-leftist social engineering projects, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, aimed at enforcing multiculturalism”, and that it rejected the “theory” of climate change. The people who came up with this stuff were a mixture of inadequates and monsters: they were never going to get anywhere near power and influence. But long after they left the stage, it is sobering to see how much of what they spewed out has now made its way into everyday politics.
Let’s be honest: the insistence that refugees might be left to drown is the kind of thing that used to be confined to the meeting rooms of dodgy pubs and white supremacist marches where the police always outnumbered the protesters. Now, it has been voiced by a millionaire property investor who was born in Pakistan, came to the UK when he was 13, and is now an enthusiastic member of a party with no end of influence. We now know that Ofcom has no issue with Farage presenting his nightly show on GB News during the forthcoming election campaign; and with Reform’s paranoid, parochial mindset also echoed by the Mail and Telegraph and soaked up by scores of Tory MPs, the party may well have a level of clout out of all proportion to whatever share of the vote it manages to attract.
What Habib said on TalkTV was surely a window into not just his party’s soul, but the warped mindset of a growing political faction that is tightening its grip on Conservatism. Self-evidently, it is following much the same script as a whole host of hard-right authoritarians: Donald Trump, the French politician Marine Le Pen, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. But these days, I keep thinking of a passage from the music and culture writer Jon Savage’s peerless book England’s Dreaming, taken from a diary entry in 1975: “Fascism here won’t be like in Germany. It’ll be English: ratty, mean, pinched”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/28/children-drown-channel-britain-ben-habib-reform-uk4 -
When I was first seeing Mrs J, and mt now F-i-L had not retired, I used to phone her up whilst she was visiting family. She warned me that there would be an unusual extra couple of tones when connecting, which you did not get from any other number. That was true. She said that all her parent's calls were recorded, and we therefore agreed to have overtly sexual conversations as the people listening in would be overtly religious young men undergoing national service, and it would embarrass them...kle4 said:
If I were an authoritarian regime (one of those that likes to make believe it is not authoritarian, so allows some level of liberties) I'd have the obviously corrupt but also just badly run official post office, which everyone knew opened and read their mail, but also allow several alternative 'private' entities which the casual dissenter at least might think is more reliable, but are fact is also run by the state and reads their mail.JosiasJessop said:
"You can write them a letter."NickPalmer said:
1. You can write them a letter. Green card applications do not initially require a personal visit. If you do get invited for interview (and this is subject to capacity etc.) and have plausible reasons to fear visiting the Embassy, the Embassy processing worker can arrange to meet you elsewhere.boulay said:
Ok, Mogadishu as an example. If you fear for your safety and meet asylum criteria do you really think it’s a safe option to be popping into the British Embassy when the chances are the people you fear are monitoring the British Embassy to see who is going in and out and then grab you in the middle of the night before you get granted asylum and the chance to board a plane out.NickPalmer said:
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.boulay said:
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.CJtheOptimist said:
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
If you are Iranian opposition is it a good idea to head to the British Embassy today for an interview and hand in papers?
2. You can apply in another country.
Yes, there are scenarios where neither works. Maybe the Embassy staff won't come to you. Maybe you can't get to another country. And so on. I'm not suggesting a perfect system, but one that will cope with some of the demand in a controlled way, localised to cojuntries around the world, to reduce the Hunger Games solution of forcing people to try their luck at boat crossings. You seem anxious to find cases where it won't work, but if it sometimes works, then it's a help. I don't think the problem has a magic bullet solution, but it can be improved over the current position.
I fear that this is a radical overestimation of the independence of the postal services in foreign countries. If you have a 'bad' regime, do you think they're not checking mail to the embassies?
Going the other way, my parents get Christmas and birthday cards from Mrs J's parents. They often arrive with a Royal Mail sticker, saying something like: "This pot has been opened. Not by us."
Post can be dangerous.
I should expect most authoritarian regimes are even better than that, thesedays they can read dystopian fiction (or reports from North Korea, as if there's much difference) to get ideas and refine their efficient cruelties further.
I'd like to think that worked.
The telling thing is that I hesitate to tell this story, as there might still be repercussions. IMV that is the line between a 'free' and 'unfree' state: whether you can say things that criticise the regime. I can say Sunak is a fucking arsehole who can get his backside out of Number Ten, and only fall foul of site and other general rules. Thew rules should apply equally to him as they do to (say) Starmer, Yousaf, or you and me.
Being fearful of (politely) criticising a politician or political party is one sign of an unfree state.2 -
Talking of libs hating it. A nice little story concerning Lord Gorgeous of TeesworksRochdalePioneers said:
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/new-storm-over-houchen-and-teesworks/1 -
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?0 -
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.0 -
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.0 -
Does it involve howling at the pesky libs perchance?Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?0 -
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.Scott_xP said:
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.0 -
GNU Terry Pratchettbondegezou said:It is Terry Practhett’s birthday today.
2 -
Are these the final national figures for the next General Election?bondegezou said:
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)0 -
Just in terms of a general point, Labour is shit at election campaigns.RandallFlagg said:
Street is popular to be fair. If this was a unknown Tory, Labour would probably win reasonably comfortably.Taz said:
The proper West Mids, as in the area covered by te he old West Mids County Council.Andy_JS said:
Of course this isn't the West Midlands region, with all the Tory areas like Stratford-on-Avon and Herefordshire. This is just the urban areas of Bham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall, etc, where Labour ought to be miles ahead.bondegezou said:I think this is the new West Midlands mayoral poll: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Con 41%
Lab 39%
Grn 8%
RefUK 8%
Independent 3%
LibDem 1% (!!!!)
Agree this is poor for labour. They should be streets ahead. No pun intended.
Having said all that, there is evidence that the Labour Party has problems in the W Midlands.
One factor in the West Midlands is the bankruptcy of Birmingham Council, and I think that's hurting Labour, even though it's largely due to central government starving local councils of money, as you can see by all the other local government bankruptcies, whoever they're run by.
I think there's some accumulating evidence that Labour will lose ground in the general election campaign, and somewhat stumble over the line, rather than canter to victory.0 -
I seem to recall reading a criticism of, er, critics using several different reasons to criticise the plan - eg that it would be ineffective, but that it was also morally wrong - but I don't really see the issue with someone sincerely believing both those things, whilst others might be against for just one. I recall when it came to the prorogation it seemed it might well be lawful - certainly at least one court thought so - but that to me was irrelevant to whether it was the right thing to do.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.2 -
In a way, that's the thing. If the plan is to start the Rwanda Express ASAP, then the election also needs to be ASAP, or the inherent absurdity of the scheme will be obvious.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
Even keeping the pretence going for the 5-6 weeks of an election campaign seems ambitious.
Apart from Colonel Nicholson, who are the other famous examples of characters keeping a project going, no matter how counterproductive, out of misplaced pride and "just because it is there"-ness?
I'm bored of likening Rishi to Colonel Nicholson.1 -
Afternoon all
This is the poll which has got @Andy_JS so excited.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/west-midlands-combined-authority-mayoral-elections-poll-suggests-a-dead-heat/
Street leads 41-39 over Parker which, to be fair, is within Margin of Error. The fieldwork for this poll done slightly earlier but does overlap with the R&W poll which had Parker ahead by six. It's also worth noting More In Common tends to give higher Conservative poll ratings for Westminster polls than other pollsters so there may be something in the sampling and weighting but we'll see on Thursday.
Perhaps they have a London Mayoral poll in the field which shows Hall within five points of Sadiq Khan - I've no clue. Zero activity in this part of London which makes me think the battle is being fought in Outer London where Khan needs only to be close to Hall in the numbers.0 -
Speer? Tbf he was actually quite good at it, and had a certain ‘ideological’ investment.Stuartinromford said:
In a way, that's the thing. If the plan is to start the Rwanda Express ASAP, then the election also needs to be ASAP, or the inherent absurdity of the scheme will be obvious.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
Even keeping the pretence going for the 5-6 weeks of an election campaign seems ambitious.
Apart from Colonel Nicholson, who are the other famous examples of characters keeping a project going, no matter how counterproductive, out of misplaced pride and "just because it is there"-ness?
I'm bored of likening Rishi to Colonel Nicholson.0 -
yebbut, he's an idiotMexicanpete said:
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.Scott_xP said:
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.0 -
I never understand this sudden desire to talk up the slightest thing in terms of triggering a huge polling revival for the Conservatives - I suspect very little will change between now and the GE, minds have been made up and no mention of positive spin is going to make a lot of odds. It's NOT 1992 - this time many people want the Conservatives gone.Mexicanpete said:
Sunak is already claiming victory via Southern Ireland, and not a boat has been stopped.Scott_xP said:
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
I'm also not sure a migrant crisis in Ireland plays well for Sunak especially if we start having boat problems in the Irish Sea as well as the Channel. The problems will begin when the weather settles and warms - for now, the wind is in the north or east ans it's not pleasant.3 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
The other thing worth noting is that I think we may well see the Tories drive a coach and horses through the concept of election purdah, and be planning the timetable of flights to Rwanda to coincide with the general election campaign.
This will make a difference. Of course it will - which is why, as a mature democracy, the concept of election purdah came about. But those fearless custodians of all that is worth preserving about Britain are so desperate to stave off defeat that I think they'll trash it anyway.0 -
Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
Er, no. If the boats go from 100 a week to 1 a week that is an obvious and huge victoryScott_xP said:
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
Were you always this dim? I somehow remember you were quite sharp but then you were never memorable even when sensible so I could be wrong
Chances of this drop happening? Very low. 3%?
But that also explains why they are going as fast as they can. I suspect some of them believe that the deterrent effect of a single flight will be enough to deter quite a few
They’re almost certainly wrong. But if you’re 20% behind in the polls and this is a chance of changing that significantly - then of course you’ll take the chance, however slender0 -
And after the police left, they smuggled the drugs..,bondegezou said:
My nephew crossed the Channel on a stand-up paddleboard (from the UK to France, and then they came straight back in the support boat, landed back in the UK and got stopped by the police, who thought they might be drug smuggling, although they were quickly able to explain that, no, they were just after novel ways of crossing the Channel).Richard_Tyndall said:
Um No they are not. Because if we did have open borders then no one would have to come over on the boats. They would just travel over in the same way as the 1.4 million other immigrants who came to Britain last year. I seriously doubt that anyone, given the choice of crossing by ferry or inflatable rubber duck, would choose the latter.Andy_JS said:
Not stopping the boats and open borders are one and the same thing, practically speaking.Mexicanpete said:
Nobody is advocating open borders.Taz said:
I’m not a fan of the specific Rwanda scheme, mainly down to their being no right to come to the U.K. if processed and approved, but there is a sizeable minority who simply favour open borders, no human is illegal.williamglenn said:
How is it immoral? Do you think asylum seekers should have de facto global freedom of movement with the ability to choose anywhere in the world to go to?Mexicanpete said:
I hated the policy the moment Priti Patel announced it. Strangely so did an array of other communists like Cameron and Sunak. I very much doubt it will "work", but that isn't the point. It is immoral on so many planes.Casino_Royale said:
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.Mexicanpete said:
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.Casino_Royale said:
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.another_richard said:So the Rwanda strategy is already having positive results:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
If current Government thinking is "we'll give it a spin because it will trigger the liberals" no wonder EVERYTHING seems to turn to rat s***.
It’s bizarre that some people value those coming over on dinghies more than wealth creators. See all the fuss about non doms.
Accusing opponents of the Rwanda scheme of promoting open borders is a cheap justification of a scheme that is otherwise morally unjustifiable. 1 -
Thanks. There's a rationale, even if I don't think it makes sense.Leon said:Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
Er, no. If the boats go from 100 a week to 1 a week that is an obvious and huge victoryScott_xP said:
If one boat lands after one plane takes off the entire plan failed, and they can't spin it any other way.Mexicanpete said:
The Telegraph, Mail and GeeBeebies can sell it as a success when gale force winds prevent crossings for the fortnight before the election.Stuartinromford said:
Which makes the rush to get people onto planes all the more inexplicable.Scott_xP said:The question is not whether the Rwanda plan is immoral (which it is), illegal (which it is), a useful deterrent (it is not) but whether it will in fact stop a single boat.
To which the answer is, and always has been, NO.
If planes take off and boats keep coming (c'mon, it's a possibility), what does the government do?
It only needs to take the Tories up to an election. It can fail miserably after said election and no one will notice.
Were you always this dim? I somehow remember you were quite sharp but then you were never memorable even when sensible so I could be wrong
Chances of this drop happening? Very low. 3%?
But that also explains why they are going as fast as they can. I suspect some of them believe that the deterrent effect of a single flight will be enough to deter quite a few
They’re almost certainly wrong. But if you’re 20% behind in the polls and this is a chance of changing that significantly - then of course you’ll take the chance, however slender
Even if Rishi is desperate, you can't run a country on 3% chances. (Is the problem that you can run Venture Capital on 3% chances, because when the wins come they are huge? And so that's how Rishi is processing this?)0 -
I think Sir Terry has transcended the clacks.viewcode said:1
