Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
Well for sure but the boat migrant numbers are at record levels for the year to date, a year during which the Rwanda scheme has been pursued with determination by HMG - there is no indication that it is having any deterrence at all.
Year to 8 May 2022 7750 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2023 6691 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2024 8826 boat migrants
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
Well for sure but the boat migrant numbers are at record levels for the year to date, a year during which the Rwanda scheme has been pursued with determination by HMG; there is no indication that it is having any deterrence at all.
Year to 8 May 2022 7750 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2023 6691 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2024 8826 boat migrants
You can’t be totally sure of that though- what would the numbers be without it? And besides, one person has gone. One. Pretty good odds.
If, and it’s a big if, flights started taking off every week, it might cut through.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
Don't know their view on self ID, mind.
I think they were pretty clear.
6 MAY 1933: LOOTING OF THE INSTITUTE OF SEXOLOGY https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/ ...Founded in 1919, the institute had been set up by Magnus Hirschfeld, a world-renowned expert in the emerging discipline of sexology. During its existence, thousands of patients were seen and treated, often for free. The Institute also achieved a global reputation for its pioneering work on transsexual understanding and calls for equality for homosexuals, transgender people and women. Hirschfield himself was a passionate advocate for homosexual rights and had long appealed for the repeal of Paragraph 175, the law that criminalised homosexuality in Germany...
Sunak has made it clear he wants to fight the election on "Getting Rwanda Done" and Starmer has today announced that his key policy will be "Getting Rwanda Undone". The battle lines have been drawn. All we need now is a date ... and a battle.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
Well for sure but the boat migrant numbers are at record levels for the year to date, a year during which the Rwanda scheme has been pursued with determination by HMG; there is no indication that it is having any deterrence at all.
Year to 8 May 2022 7750 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2023 6691 boat migrants Year to 8 May 2024 8826 boat migrants
You can’t be totally sure of that though- what would the numbers be without it? And besides, one person has gone. One. Pretty good odds.
If, and it’s a big if, flights started taking off every week, it might cut through.
It is an immoral, expensive, idiotic policy that is incapable of being implemented to any material extent but you are right that the ceteris paribus assumptions here are immense. Most of Europe seems to be suffering greater illegal migration at the moment. It is ridiculous to think we can be immune.
As a half Dane i look at the british as especially right wing brit obsession with physical borders. Physical borders are just totally antiquated. It is 1600s stuff. Look at Denmark. Open borders, eu member, integrated economy, 5% growth per year, and yet they have one on the harshest immigration laws in the West. How do they do it? The cpr personal registration number! Without it you are locked out of EVERYTHING. It is basically impossible to be an illegal immigrant in Denmark. The brexiteer approach with sailing up and down the Coast and so on is totally antiquated....join the modern world guys. You don't need physical borders to do what you want to do, when you can manage with data. I am not a right winger, but if I were, I would be proposing a modern Danish sollution that actually works. Not an anachronism like actual physical borders. But of course rwanda was never about solving any actual problems, but about creating the pretext to leaving the echr.
This is a fascinating piece. Did you know the Netherlands leads the world in solar capacity ?
How the global solar boom is powered by Chinese exports https://www.high-capacity.com/p/how-the-global-solar-boom-is-powered ...Let’s look at the world’s solar superpowers. In terms of total installed solar capacity, China is in a league of its own with over 600 GW. In 2023 alone, China added more solar capacity than the US has installed in its entire history..
..But if you scale these numbers by population, you’ll see that China actually ranks 21st. (I’ve excluded very small countries with less than 1 GW of solar capacity.) With a population of over 1.4 billion, China is a very big country, which people often forget, so in some ways its impressive numbers are just a matter of keeping up with its population. On a per capita basis, countries like the Netherlands, Australia, and Germany have been leading the push toward solar...
One big hope for progress on renewables is that countries like India - who imports up to 99% of its panels from China - put major resources into developing their own mass production, in order to reduce reliance on a strategic competitor.
As a half Dane i look at the british as especially right wing brit obsession with physical borders. Physical borders are just totally antiquated. It is 1600s stuff. Look at Denmark. Open borders, eu member, integrated economy, 5% growth per year, and yet they have one on the harshest immigration laws in the West. How do they do it? The cpr personal registration number! Without it you are locked out of EVERYTHING. It is basically impossible to be an illegal immigrant in Denmark. The brexiteer approach with sailing up and down the Coast and so on is totally antiquated....join the modern world guys. You don't need physical borders to do what you want to do, when you can manage with data. I am not a right winger, but if I were, I would be proposing a modern Danish sollution that actually works. Not an anachronism like actual physical borders. But of course rwanda was never about solving any actual problems, but about creating the pretext to leaving the echr.
The chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse says she is “deeply disappointed” by the government’s approach to stop institutional cover ups of the crime.
Survivors of abuse have described the government’s plans to stop institutional cover-ups of the crime as “a sham” and “worse than useless”.
The government has published an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, its long awaited response to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, external (IICSA).
Prof Alexis Jay, chair of IICSA, said the amendment was a "fudge" and "not a very good one”.
Her inquiry held seven years of hearings and heard from tens of thousands of victims and survivors of child sex abuse, over many decades.
It cost nearly £200m and its key recommendation was so called mandatory reporting – meaning that failing to report abuse could become a new criminal offence.
If Sunak does decide to edge it out until January 2025, or even goes with a December GE, either him (no laughing at the back) or his successor could then wait until either February 2030 or January 2030 before holding the election after this upcoming one.
It would be the first time since the 1940s that there was only one GE in a decade (being 1st January XXX0 to 31st December XXX9 - I know, I know - Millenium ended in 2000 because there is no year 0, but lets move on from that). And the 1940s did have that little problem called World War II which caused that to happen. Prior to that, the last time would be 1874, when only one election was held in the 1870s. That was, of course, when term limits were seven years rather than five.
If Sunak does decide to edge it out until January 2025, or even goes with a December GE, either him (no laughing at the back) or his successor could then wait until either February 2030 or January 2030 before holding the election after this upcoming one.
It would be the first time since the 1940s that there was only one GE in a decade (being 1st January XXX0 to 31st December XXX9 - I know, I know - Millenium ended in 2000 because there is no year 0, but lets move on from that). And the 1940s did have that little problem called World War II which caused that to happen. Prior to that, the last time would be 1874, when only one election was held in the 1870s. That was, of course, when term limits were seven years rather than five.
It’s an interesting thought, although if things go as they seem likely to, a Starmer government with decent majority up against a potential right lurched Tory party may suggest a classic 4 year interval again (see 1997, 2001, 2005 for previous data).
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
Don't know their view on self ID, mind.
I think they were pretty clear.
6 MAY 1933: LOOTING OF THE INSTITUTE OF SEXOLOGY https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/ ...Founded in 1919, the institute had been set up by Magnus Hirschfeld, a world-renowned expert in the emerging discipline of sexology. During its existence, thousands of patients were seen and treated, often for free. The Institute also achieved a global reputation for its pioneering work on transsexual understanding and calls for equality for homosexuals, transgender people and women. Hirschfield himself was a passionate advocate for homosexual rights and had long appealed for the repeal of Paragraph 175, the law that criminalised homosexuality in Germany...
The Nazis are a wonderful guide to what not to think on any topic. As long as you're generally on the opposite side of the fence to Adolph and chums, whatever the subject, you're generally going to be OK.
If Sunak does decide to edge it out until January 2025, or even goes with a December GE, either him (no laughing at the back) or his successor could then wait until either February 2030 or January 2030 before holding the election after this upcoming one.
It would be the first time since the 1940s that there was only one GE in a decade (being 1st January XXX0 to 31st December XXX9 - I know, I know - Millenium ended in 2000 because there is no year 0, but lets move on from that). And the 1940s did have that little problem called World War II which caused that to happen. Prior to that, the last time would be 1874, when only one election was held in the 1870s. That was, of course, when term limits were seven years rather than five.
It’s an interesting thought, although if things go as they seem likely to, a Starmer government with decent majority up against a potential right lurched Tory party may suggest a classic 4 year interval again (see 1997, 2001, 2005 for previous data).
I broadly agree. I think a Labour victory could then have the next GE being May 2029, but events could overtake Labour too and cause Starmer to do what Sunak is doing (hanging on till the bitter end). Additionally, although not ideal a February 2030 election would be viable, and not needing to campaign over Christmas. Heath did a February election, so Starmer might be inclined to do the same.
(I'm trying to figure out when the election would be, if Sunak really did just let it go to Tuesday 28th January, Parliament reconvenes on Thursday 30th January 2025 after all votes were in, the election could be as late as... do I make it Wednesday 6th March 2030?
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The nazi's only concentrated on one of the 3.
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
What a load of rubbish, Putin certainly doesn't properly follow the book, Jong Un is an atheist, it was the churches and mosques which provided soup kitchens and hostels for those who lost their jobs and homes in 2008 after a crash caused by not very religious bankers
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Quite.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
Except, has there been any significant pause in neighbouring peoples trying to wipe Israel off the map since its creation?
Israel has reached multiple agreements with their murderous neighbours. The neighbours keep trying to murder them
Moving the fence isn't exactly equivalent
Errr: Israel has been at peace with Egypt for a long time, and has signed a number of arrangements with them.
Have just been on the receiving end of my first piece of anti-English hate. Competition with the shop across the road (vs our shop). Posted a comment onto her Facebook post onto the community page wondering if we should go and buy the stuff she sells. Which I then deleted, and sent her a polite email instead. Got a nice response back - lets have a coffee etc.
Anyway, I'm mowing the side lawn (big garden). Old man (but sizeably built) walks in asking about our shop. He then gets in my face telling me to fuck off and leave his granddaughter's shop alone. Er, we support it mate. We repost her posts on Facebook. We send customers over when she has stuff people are asking for.
Anyway, lots of English abuse shouted in my face, coming up here to rule over them, got called the ban hammer word. In my own garden. And then he walks off shouting more abuse. No real threats. He pulled a ski mask over his head though. But I know who you are, you just said. And then says "the van's fucked" having left it outside our gate where it'll get hit by a truck.
Didn't call the police. Want to de-escalate. Instead emailed his daughter(?) to progress the business chat. And mentioned it to her. Hoping that he will calm down and get that we are supporting her...
Sorry to hear that. It does happen occasionally.
I'm not sure exactly where you are, but that part of the world has large immigrant communities from Poland, rUK due to the RAF and army, and then you have all the oil workers and trawlermen which are a mixed bunch too. This guy must have been living under a rock.
It's all well suggesting that it's a rare incident and not representative of people in general, but from what I hear from others it will stay with you for some time and prey on your mind.
North London, right now... although while it looks like that thru the phone camera, to the naked eye it's really faint.
On of the problems living south of Birmingham (by no means the most pressing...) is that it's impossible to distinguish between the aurora borealis and the ever-present loom of the west Midlands conurbation.
Sunak has made it clear he wants to fight the election on "Getting Rwanda Done" and Starmer has today announced that his key policy will be "Getting Rwanda Undone". The battle lines have been drawn. All we need now is a date ... and a battle.
Starmer's team have already managed to get Rwanda undone. Visit Rwanda's partnership with Arsenal ends in 2025.
I can see them from here. I'm going out into the boonies somewhere to take some pictures.
There's a diffuse light and a green band about 30 degrees above the horizon to the north.
Use a proper camera with something like a 4 second exposure.
Edit: Now some curtains.
Note that it is never going to look colourful without a camera unless you are somewhere really dark and your eyes are dark adapted.
I think I saw something from here in suburban Ilford. A very faint green glow looking north, and red glows at the northwest and northeast. Tried taking a pic but didn't come out well!
I can see *something* in the sky (South Wales), a very faint thing that I would assume was clouds if I didn't know what was going on tonight, but my phone camera sees sod all.
Note: it is a post, not a video, even though it is on YouTube.
Seems fair, although I think both Major and Blair deserve some more positive ratings. Perhaps I just have happy memories of my teens and twenties. "Useless" seems to be a common theme from Brown onwards.
Sunak has made it clear he wants to fight the election on "Getting Rwanda Done" and Starmer has today announced that his key policy will be "Getting Rwanda Undone". The battle lines have been drawn. All we need now is a date ... and a battle.
Starmer's team have already managed to get Rwanda undone. Visit Rwanda's partnership with Arsenal ends in 2025.
Note: it is a post, not a video, even though it is on YouTube.
Seems fair, although I think both Major and Blair deserve some more positive ratings. Perhaps I just have happy memories of my teens and twenties. "Useless" seems to be a common theme from Brown onwards.
It shows how completely Tony Blair is defined by Iraq. Some interesting points from the comments: John Major's greyness comes from Spitting Image; Gordon Brown is Scottish and boring, and Cameron posh, which seem negative but are they really?
Note: it is a post, not a video, even though it is on YouTube.
Seems fair, although I think both Major and Blair deserve some more positive ratings. Perhaps I just have happy memories of my teens and twenties. "Useless" seems to be a common theme from Brown onwards.
It shows how completely Tony Blair is defined by Iraq. Some interesting points from the comments: John Major's greyness comes from Spitting Image; Gordon Brown is Scottish and boring, and Cameron posh, which seem negative but are they really?
Scottish is only a negative adjective when placed before the words "food" or "weather".
As a half Dane i look at the british as especially right wing brit obsession with physical borders. Physical borders are just totally antiquated. It is 1600s stuff. Look at Denmark. Open borders, eu member, integrated economy, 5% growth per year, and yet they have one on the harshest immigration laws in the West. How do they do it? The cpr personal registration number! Without it you are locked out of EVERYTHING. It is basically impossible to be an illegal immigrant in Denmark. The brexiteer approach with sailing up and down the Coast and so on is totally antiquated....join the modern world guys. You don't need physical borders to do what you want to do, when you can manage with data. I am not a right winger, but if I were, I would be proposing a modern Danish sollution that actually works. Not an anachronism like actual physical borders. But of course rwanda was never about solving any actual problems, but about creating the pretext to leaving the echr.
Ironically, the best photos are from PBers at home in Blighty pointing phones skyward. Pictures from exotic foreign climes have been mostly beer and fields and trees, and we have all those here. BlancheLivermore's horses and mountains was all right though.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Rwanda policy is performative nonsense. It has been performative nonsense from the day Johnson and Patel set it up as a smokescreen for Partygate. The client media are spinning the Irish angle, something which has been going on for months. The dawn raids and asylum seekers in handcuffs was just performative cruelty. The Rwanda plan allegedly is encouraging asylum seekers towards a return journey from Kent to Calais. Yet boatloads are still coming in the other direction several times a day. Are they all off to Ireland?
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
As a half Dane i look at the british as especially right wing brit obsession with physical borders. Physical borders are just totally antiquated. It is 1600s stuff. Look at Denmark. Open borders, eu member, integrated economy, 5% growth per year, and yet they have one on the harshest immigration laws in the West. How do they do it? The cpr personal registration number! Without it you are locked out of EVERYTHING. It is basically impossible to be an illegal immigrant in Denmark. The brexiteer approach with sailing up and down the Coast and so on is totally antiquated....join the modern world guys. You don't need physical borders to do what you want to do, when you can manage with data. I am not a right winger, but if I were, I would be proposing a modern Danish sollution that actually works. Not an anachronism like actual physical borders. But of course rwanda was never about solving any actual problems, but about creating the pretext to leaving the echr.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Rwanda policy is performative nonsense. It has been performative nonsense from the day Johnson and Patel set it up as a smokescreen for Partygate. The client media are spinning the Irish angle, something which has been going on for months. The dawn raids and asylum seekers in handcuffs was just performative cruelty. The Rwanda plan allegedly is encouraging asylum seekers towards a return journey from Kent to Calais. Yet boatloads are still coming in the other direction several times a day. Are they all off to Ireland?
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
If Starmer is removing the disincentive of the Rwanda plan, without any replacement plan but the usual bluster, then he can be judged on the numbers.
A single massive solar flare could wipe out all the entire planet's electrical transformers, and we wouldn't be able to replace them in time.
Here's the facts on this tail-end risk: - Transformers are integral to our energy grid, convert between distribution and consumption voltages. - Currently, its a 36 month lead-time to replace a utility-size transformer - In the US, the average age of a transformer is 40 years, which is at the expected replacement lifetime. - There is only one company in the US that produces the steel required for heavy-duty transformers, and its on the brink of bankruptcy...
Would also take out most satellites, which would mean no GPS for a while.
A single massive solar flare could wipe out all the entire planet's electrical transformers, and we wouldn't be able to replace them in time.
Here's the facts on this tail-end risk: - Transformers are integral to our energy grid, convert between distribution and consumption voltages. - Currently, its a 36 month lead-time to replace a utility-size transformer - In the US, the average age of a transformer is 40 years, which is at the expected replacement lifetime. - There is only one company in the US that produces the steel required for heavy-duty transformers, and its on the brink of bankruptcy...
Would also take out most satellites, which would mean no GPS for a while.
It's not so much a risk to our energy economy as a risk of a near extinction event for the human race.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Rwanda policy is performative nonsense. It has been performative nonsense from the day Johnson and Patel set it up as a smokescreen for Partygate. The client media are spinning the Irish angle, something which has been going on for months. The dawn raids and asylum seekers in handcuffs was just performative cruelty. The Rwanda plan allegedly is encouraging asylum seekers towards a return journey from Kent to Calais. Yet boatloads are still coming in the other direction several times a day. Are they all off to Ireland?
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
If Starmer is removing the disincentive of the Rwanda plan, without any replacement plan but the usual bluster, then he can be judged on the numbers.
Rwanda is only a disincentive to the extent that the Government and their client journalists say it is. On a calm Spring or Summer day I don't see much of that disincentive working.
Tom Swarbrick's line on LBC yesterday was Rwanda is working because migrants want to return to France. Colour me skeptical but I am yet to see an encampment on the beaches of Kent.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Rwanda policy is performative nonsense. It has been performative nonsense from the day Johnson and Patel set it up as a smokescreen for Partygate. The client media are spinning the Irish angle, something which has been going on for months. The dawn raids and asylum seekers in handcuffs was just performative cruelty. The Rwanda plan allegedly is encouraging asylum seekers towards a return journey from Kent to Calais. Yet boatloads are still coming in the other direction several times a day. Are they all off to Ireland?
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
If Starmer is removing the disincentive of the Rwanda plan, without any replacement plan but the usual bluster, then he can be judged on the numbers.
Judging by the numbers over the last 2 weeks the Rwanda plan is not a disincentive to travel.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Rwanda policy is performative nonsense. It has been performative nonsense from the day Johnson and Patel set it up as a smokescreen for Partygate. The client media are spinning the Irish angle, something which has been going on for months. The dawn raids and asylum seekers in handcuffs was just performative cruelty. The Rwanda plan allegedly is encouraging asylum seekers towards a return journey from Kent to Calais. Yet boatloads are still coming in the other direction several times a day. Are they all off to Ireland?
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
If Starmer is removing the disincentive of the Rwanda plan, without any replacement plan but the usual bluster, then he can be judged on the numbers.
Judging by the numbers over the last 2 weeks the Rwanda plan is not a disincentive to travel.
The Rwanda plan literally is bluster- nobody who can count thinks that the odds of a given individual migrant being sent there are high. Even some of the feistier Rwanda proponents acknowledge that.
And the remaining 99% are... well, the facts on the ground are that people are being forced to hang around for years until the system says the equivalent of "oh, go on then". The British state has largely given up doing anything else.
And as for people saying it's a deterrent... As always, ignore what they say, watch what they do. It's not just politicians where there's often a difference.
Comments
(2) Tuesday and wednesday - grey
(3) you
What was it, "Toy"?
Year to 8 May 2022 7750 boat migrants
Year to 8 May 2023 6691 boat migrants
Year to 8 May 2024 8826 boat migrants
If, and it’s a big if, flights started taking off every week, it might cut through.
6 MAY 1933: LOOTING OF THE INSTITUTE OF SEXOLOGY
https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/
...Founded in 1919, the institute had been set up by Magnus Hirschfeld, a world-renowned expert in the emerging discipline of sexology. During its existence, thousands of patients were seen and treated, often for free. The Institute also achieved a global reputation for its pioneering work on transsexual understanding and calls for equality for homosexuals, transgender people and women. Hirschfield himself was a passionate advocate for homosexual rights and had long appealed for the repeal of Paragraph 175, the law that criminalised homosexuality in Germany...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany
And different people have different needs!
HOWEVER I thought Australia would qualify from their semi final group and they didn't.
So DYOR.
Great song.
Sunday always comes too late
Gents. I think the Russian trolls may possess a 1992 Cure calendar on their wall to plan out their interventions.
https://international.kk.dk/live/cpr-registration-and-documents/cpr-number E
There's a diffuse light and a green band about 30 degrees above the horizon to the north.
Use a proper camera with something like a 4 second exposure.
Edit: Now some curtains.
Note that it is never going to look colourful without a camera unless you are somewhere really dark and your eyes are dark adapted.
How the global solar boom is powered by Chinese exports
https://www.high-capacity.com/p/how-the-global-solar-boom-is-powered
...Let’s look at the world’s solar superpowers. In terms of total installed solar capacity, China is in a league of its own with over 600 GW. In 2023 alone, China added more solar capacity than the US has installed in its entire history..
..But if you scale these numbers by population, you’ll see that China actually ranks 21st. (I’ve excluded very small countries with less than 1 GW of solar capacity.) With a population of over 1.4 billion, China is a very big country, which people often forget, so in some ways its impressive numbers are just a matter of keeping up with its population. On a per capita basis, countries like the Netherlands, Australia, and Germany have been leading the push toward solar...
One big hope for progress on renewables is that countries like India - who imports up to 99% of its panels from China - put major resources into developing their own mass production, in order to reduce reliance on a strategic competitor.
She's one of the less stupid politicians, isn't she ? She must mean something by it.
Survivors of abuse have described the government’s plans to stop institutional cover-ups of the crime as “a sham” and “worse than useless”.
The government has published an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, its long awaited response to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, external (IICSA).
Prof Alexis Jay, chair of IICSA, said the amendment was a "fudge" and "not a very good one”.
Her inquiry held seven years of hearings and heard from tens of thousands of victims and survivors of child sex abuse, over many decades.
It cost nearly £200m and its key recommendation was so called mandatory reporting – meaning that failing to report abuse could become a new criminal offence.
And from previous threads.....
If Sunak does decide to edge it out until January 2025, or even goes with a December GE, either him (no laughing at the back) or his successor could then wait until either February 2030 or January 2030 before holding the election after this upcoming one.
It would be the first time since the 1940s that there was only one GE in a decade (being 1st January XXX0 to 31st December XXX9 - I know, I know - Millenium ended in 2000 because there is no year 0, but lets move on from that). And the 1940s did have that little problem called World War II which caused that to happen. Prior to that, the last time would be 1874, when only one election was held in the 1870s. That was, of course, when term limits were seven years rather than five.
No definition, but a definite greenish hue in a slightly different direction from the town centre university building they occasionally light up.
Although all I've done is gone on about AI
(I'm trying to figure out when the election would be, if Sunak really did just let it go to Tuesday 28th January, Parliament reconvenes on Thursday 30th January 2025 after all votes were in, the election could be as late as... do I make it Wednesday 6th March 2030?
A decent enough man, reasonable at finance but not a national election winner
North London, right now... although while it looks like that thru the phone camera, to the naked eye it's really faint.
This is one area where there’s a clear dividing line between the parties.
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxtGcf2xXLhKdKtfw984C6xJ2mXyidlWLW
Note: it is a post, not a video, even though it is on YouTube.
I'm not sure exactly where you are, but that part of the world has large immigrant communities from Poland, rUK due to the RAF and army, and then you have all the oil workers and trawlermen which are a mixed bunch too. This guy must have been living under a rock.
It's all well suggesting that it's a rare incident and not representative of people in general, but from what I hear from others it will stay with you for some time and prey on your mind.
Again, to the naked eye, it's almost imperceptible.
This might be the best one looking back tbh
I don't know the rights and wrongs of the Starmer plans and whether or not they will work. Rwanda is nonetheless ineffective (whatever the Tory media tells you) and absurdly expensive. If Starmer were to can
the Rwanda farce, that seems like a positive to me.
Flashback - Mariella Frostrup presenting the Little Picture Show in 1994.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVyDiJzOhA0
https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1716974480227180711
...The Black-Swan civilization-threatening risk to our energy economy is this:
A single massive solar flare could wipe out all the entire planet's electrical transformers, and we wouldn't be able to replace them in time.
Here's the facts on this tail-end risk:
- Transformers are integral to our energy grid, convert between distribution and consumption voltages.
- Currently, its a 36 month lead-time to replace a utility-size transformer
- In the US, the average age of a transformer is 40 years, which is at the expected replacement lifetime.
- There is only one company in the US that produces the steel required for heavy-duty transformers, and its on the brink of bankruptcy...
Would also take out most satellites, which would mean no GPS for a while.
Tom Swarbrick's line on LBC yesterday was Rwanda is working because migrants want to return to France. Colour me skeptical but I am yet to see an encampment on the beaches of Kent.
About 750 arrived in the last week.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
NEW THREAD
And the remaining 99% are... well, the facts on the ground are that people are being forced to hang around for years until the system says the equivalent of "oh, go on then". The British state has largely given up doing anything else.
And as for people saying it's a deterrent... As always, ignore what they say, watch what they do. It's not just politicians where there's often a difference.