I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
It seems harsh but I kind of understand the logic. You should follow the rules to the letter if you want our hospitality. Maybe a 3 strikes and you're out system with lower-level offences?
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
It would take most of the Tommy Robinson fans from Reform to the new Lowe and Habib party, possibly funded by Musk
Reading Trumpski's social posts overnight, he is freaking out
Over what in particular?
(Presumably not Moon's Cheltenham picks.)
The trouble Musk is in, and the problems tariffs are causing
He responded to the Canadians putting a 25% tariff on electricity supplies with this gem
"You're not allowed to do that"
Such a whiny baby
Apparently yesterday was a large scale DDoS attack. Which doesn't happen to serious companies these days, but someone had failed to implement Cloudfare on some of the servers. (I am a tech ignoramus, so no doubt this is only an approximation of what happened.) It's also pretty unlikely that Musk has any idea of where the attack originated.
Resilience costs money. Musk is a genius for cost-cutting and efficiency but every now and then, it bites you on the arse. All companies until recently had the same dilemma – is it worth doubling your costs in order to stay online? It's a very expensive insurance policy against something that may never happen.
"Musk is a genius for cost-cutting and efficiency"
What evidence do you have for that? Blindly cutting costs is easy. Cutting costs and not damaging things is much, much harder. And 'efficiency' often depends on the metric being used.
Interesting review of Runcorn by-election, predicting: Lab 33%, Ref 30%, Con 20% (languishing according to review, despite up 4% on GE), Grn 8%, LD 5%.
At 16/1 Cons perhaps most tempting odds with a low turnout, but I doubt I will succumb, as just can't see it. Anti-Reform probably push Labour over the line.
More likely Reform but only with Tory tactical votes to beat Labour
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
Though either way the Trump administration is more focused on containing China militarily than Russia and will be more pro AUUKUS than pro Nato
It has just demonstrated in Europe that it's completely unreliable as an ally. It's now told Australia that in return for its $3bn upfront payment to the US, it will get nothing.
If you were the Australian government would you rely entirely on the US military for your defence ?
No but Trump is more wary of Xi than Putin, for starters he is already in a tariffs trade war with China
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Yes - I assumed it was for foreign nationals but what about those with dual passports such as Mrs Stodge? Are we talking about ALL offences or just criminal - what about civil offences such as littering? Are we saying if she drops a piece of litter she could be sent back to Auckland and never allowed to return?
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
Tice wants to deport 1 million illegal immigrants. The courts deport about 10,000 per year. The other 990,000 to be picked by Tice et al presumably.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Didn't have anything else to do, so I downloaded the data and checked. It's wrong. It's actually just over 34%. Some might argue that's still too high, but lying about the data isn't a good start.
ETA: I think - *think* - their figures might work if you count Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as foreign.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Philp repeats Goodwin's error (or should we call it a trick) of taking data on where someone was born and presuming that someone not born in the UK is "foreign". Someone might have been born in another country to British parents who were living abroad for a period. Boris Johnson was born in the US: is he foreign? When you look at the statistics, there are quite a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany. Some are German nationals who moved to the UK, but lots are British nationals with a parent in the armed forces who was stationed in Germany.
Next, Philp and Goodwin presume that you cannot change your nationality. If you immigrate to the UK, integrate into UK society, speak perfect English, renounce any other citizenship you have, Philp and Goodwin would still say you are "foreign". That is not how most British people think. Prince Philip, for example, most people would say he was British, even though he was born in Greece and of Danish heritage.
Philp adds a claim that these people "have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]". This is also wrong. It's hard to avoid VAT. Nearly everyone is paying VAT, whatever your income. You are not kicked out of social housing because you get a job, so you may have previously had little income, but be paying more now. Or you might have had a job in the past, become unemployed and then received social housing. It is very hard to determine how much tax these people will have paid and it will vary enormously, but most of them will have paid some tax.
Whenever I see him on tv I always remember a character from Bleak Expectations (Radio series) called Pip Bin, the inventor of the bin. That just about sums up Philp.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Yes - I assumed it was for foreign nationals but what about those with dual passports such as Mrs Stodge? Are we talking about ALL offences or just criminal - what about civil offences such as littering? Are we saying if she drops a piece of litter she could be sent back to Auckland and never allowed to return?
No, but if she happened to be a muslim from Somalia on benefits, then yes. Of course that bit is unspoken.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It's not really possible to means-test the pension. People pay NICs (and, yes, I know it isn't a pension pot, and is paid out of current taxation) in the sure knowledge that they will receive pension with no ifs or buts. It's an integral part of the calculation made in advance of retirement. And it's analogous to a social contract between citizen and state. Any govt which broke the contract would be heading towards the trashcan double-quick. The savings will have to come out of welfare spending. No alternative. The security threat provides cover for the Govt to get on with it.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
Tice wants to deport 1 million illegal immigrants. The courts deport about 10,000 per year. The other 990,000 to be picked by Tice et al presumably.
We'll, if there are a million people here illegally, fair enough. Why does the number matter? It's a bit like saying there are 100,000 burglaries a year but we should only pursue 1,000 of them.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It's not really possible to means-test the pension. People pay NICs (and, yes, I know it isn't a pension pot, and is paid out of current taxation) in the sure knowledge that they will receive pension with no ifs or buts. It's an integral part of the calculation made in advance of retirement. And it's analogous to a social contract between citizen and state. Any govt which broke the contract would be heading towards the trashcan double-quick. The savings will have to come out of welfare spending. No alternative. The security threat provides cover for the Govt to get on with it.
How can those below 40-45ish expect (without means testing at a similar level to today) their pension when the demographics make that hugely expensive and the country is not willing to accept further migration to improve the pyramid.
They are paying in but won't get it back. Hence the move to workplace pensions.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
Tice wants to deport 1 million illegal immigrants. The courts deport about 10,000 per year. The other 990,000 to be picked by Tice et al presumably.
We'll, if there are a million people here illegally, fair enough. Why does the number matter? It's a bit like saying there are 100,000 burglaries a year but we should only pursue 1,000 of them.
The number matters because Tice chose it, yet it is absurd within the current environment.
I am all for funding the courts and police properly, and to let them do their job rather than keep cutting them back to the point of inefficiency.
The main reasons for immigration policy failing are housing, incoherent government choices and lack of funding for the courts.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
Though either way the Trump administration is more focused on containing China militarily than Russia and will be more pro AUUKUS than pro Nato
It has just demonstrated in Europe that it's completely unreliable as an ally. It's now told Australia that in return for its $3bn upfront payment to the US, it will get nothing.
If you were the Australian government would you rely entirely on the US military for your defence ?
No but Trump is more wary of Xi than Putin, for starters he is already in a tariffs trade war with China
Australia doesn't give a hoot about that. It's about whether they can trust a guy who has threatened to invade his ally neighbour. Or a country which has just broken an alliance which previously lasted for seven decades.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Thinking about Trump's comments about buying a Tesla, I suppose it could survive, in the long-term, as a rightwing brand. But in that case it will be smaller than now, as the right wing don't like electric cars as much.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
Even driving at 25m in Wales? Or chopping down a ULEZ camera?
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It's not really possible to means-test the pension. People pay NICs (and, yes, I know it isn't a pension pot, and is paid out of current taxation) in the sure knowledge that they will receive pension with no ifs or buts. It's an integral part of the calculation made in advance of retirement. And it's analogous to a social contract between citizen and state. Any govt which broke the contract would be heading towards the trashcan double-quick. The savings will have to come out of welfare spending. No alternative. The security threat provides cover for the Govt to get on with it.
This is true, and the IHT on farmers is a parallel case. People plan according to the realities. If the state pension didn't exist we would plan differently. It takes time - sometimes decades - to do long term planning for being old so stability and long forewarnings are essential to civil order.
I'm not much bothered about most of the farmers in the IHT row, as better planning will sort their problems, but those elderly farmers (and other business owners too) who planned long term according to the law as it stood and now don't have the lifespan left to rearrange have been absolutely treated abominably. This should be fixed by a 10 year transition period.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It's not really possible to means-test the pension. People pay NICs (and, yes, I know it isn't a pension pot, and is paid out of current taxation) in the sure knowledge that they will receive pension with no ifs or buts. It's an integral part of the calculation made in advance of retirement. And it's analogous to a social contract between citizen and state. Any govt which broke the contract would be heading towards the trashcan double-quick. The savings will have to come out of welfare spending. No alternative. The security threat provides cover for the Govt to get on with it.
How can those below 40-45ish expect (without means testing at a similar level to today) their pension when the demographics make that hugely expensive and the country is not willing to accept further migration to improve the pyramid.
They are paying in but won't get it back. Hence the move to workplace pensions.
That's a fair comment. But Govt would have to prepare people for that, so they can adjust expectations well in advance, and make preparations accordingly - as with increasing the pension age. Otherwise you will get WASPI to the power of ten.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
FPT
I think you'll find this will be as difficult as getting rid of Triple Lock. There is a whole host of charities (a tax law designation) that spend their monies (often government grants) on Judicial Reviews to challenge small aspects of legal interpretation of any new legislation. This chips away at the foundations of some quite realistic approaches which then creates anomalies. These anomalies then create more opportunities for a JR and so it goes on.
I haven't a clue what can or should be done about people exercising their legal rights apart from politicians drafting sound laws in the first place.
Defund the charities, it's really not that difficult.
Though the whole activist 'charity' sector - often funded by our taxes - is annoying, that is not the better answer.
The USA today reminds us daily that the rule of law actually matters. Government and parliament are in charge of law making. If government/any arm of the state does stuff that breaks its own laws they have even less excuse than the rest of us. They made it; and they have thousands of lawyers, paid for by us, to advise them.
They should use their powers of repeal, amending and revising properly so that the law properly reflects reality, and limits the infinity of government policy, and is not self contradictory.
The irritating pressure groups are doing a job. Let's hope they do it in USA as well.
The problem is courage. It is so very easy for the politicians to create unfunded rights. They sound good. Simple to create. Get applauded by all the Right People.
Then, with SEN (for example), they discover what the Labour Party discovered in 1945 with the NHS. That the demand for the service was vastly greater, once it was available to all, than anyone has thought possible.
The Labour Party, then, had leaders who had the courage to try and limit the growth *and* fund what they actually could. Pragmatic.
Politicians today generally lack the courage to actually legislate. The thing is, if they don’t, there are worse people waiting for their jobs…
Yes. And it is competence as well as courage. Overseeing what the law shall be in the UK, in every minute detail, is what government and parliament does. It is immensely boring and time consuming, and the more they want to cover, the worse it gets. But that is how they have chosen to arrange it. No-one should blame the courts for telling government their own laws, and organisations that want to maintain the rule of law in their own interest. That is what we all want.
There should be a committee in parliament that compares the results of previous legislation with the stated intention. In cases where the law is being used in a way that contradicts what was stated as the intention or exceeds the stated expected scope, there should be an expedited way to trim the sails.
Thinking about Trump's comments about buying a Tesla, I suppose it could survive, in the long-term, as a rightwing brand. But in that case it will be smaller than now, as the right wing don't like electric cars as much.
Don’t underestimate the power of the culture war to invert things (pun intended). It could become right-coded to have a Tesla home battery and max out on solar power.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
There's a debate to be had about what kind of welfare system we want and/or are willing to afford.
Wanting high levels of benefits without the concomitant contributions is up there with cut my taxes and spend more on hospitals and schools for naivety and stupidity.
There has to be a safety net for those in genuine need - I don't think anyone disputes that. The argument seems to be the increase in those on disability benefits (a by product of Covid and the mental and physical health problems that has caused) has increased spending on the welfare budget beyond that which is affordable given the current state of the public finances.
It's analogous to the SEN problem for local Government whereby demand has risen almost exponentially since Covid.
I'm tempted to ask why no one in Government (the Civil Service) foresaw the likelihood of increased mental and physical health problems post Covid - if you were looking at the after effects of any significant traumatic event, they would be at the top of my list. The desire to return to "normal" presumably overrode considerations of longer term consequences.
We have tens of thousands of people who have been declared unfit to work yet from the bully pulpit, we get exhortations of "they're scroungers, get them back to work". In the current world of under employment finding "work" is one thing, finding the work that works for you is something else. Put another way, there are jobs to be done but usually the jobs no one wants to do for the money being offered.
First thing is to make it impossible to get more from benefits than you would from employment and that includes the free housing / council tax. That would focus a few minds. A big scam with chancers everywhere just coining it in as it is much better paid than working. Make payments only to those who raelly need it.
Good idea, lets means test the state pension.
The pension is not a benefit.
It's not really possible to means-test the pension. People pay NICs (and, yes, I know it isn't a pension pot, and is paid out of current taxation) in the sure knowledge that they will receive pension with no ifs or buts. It's an integral part of the calculation made in advance of retirement. And it's analogous to a social contract between citizen and state. Any govt which broke the contract would be heading towards the trashcan double-quick. The savings will have to come out of welfare spending. No alternative. The security threat provides cover for the Govt to get on with it.
How can those below 40-45ish expect (without means testing at a similar level to today) their pension when the demographics make that hugely expensive and the country is not willing to accept further migration to improve the pyramid.
They are paying in but won't get it back. Hence the move to workplace pensions.
That's a fair comment. But Govt would have to prepare people for that, so they can adjust expectations well in advance, and make preparations accordingly - as with increasing the pension age. Otherwise you will get WASPI to the power of ten.
Governments can't prepare for such changes as they are on max 4 or 5 year cycles. People need to be honest about it even if politicans aren't/can't be.
The young are paying for pensions for the old that they will not get back themselves. It is fair to question if we can afford that now.
Reading Trumpski's social posts overnight, he is freaking out
Over what in particular?
(Presumably not Moon's Cheltenham picks.)
The trouble Musk is in, and the problems tariffs are causing
He responded to the Canadians putting a 25% tariff on electricity supplies with this gem
"You're not allowed to do that"
Such a whiny baby
Apparently yesterday was a large scale DDoS attack. Which doesn't happen to serious companies these days, but someone had failed to implement Cloudfare on some of the servers. (I am a tech ignoramus, so no doubt this is only an approximation of what happened.) It's also pretty unlikely that Musk has any idea of where the attack originated.
It won’t be cloudflare but Twitter should have its own cloudflare like service to protect itself.
As for knowing where a DDOS came from - you won’t have a chance as it will be coming from compromised devices the world over - it’s the only way to get the bandwidth you need to kill a service that has an equally large amount of bandwidth
Kudlow: Elon was very clear. I asked him about that. I asked him if it was a foreign source. He was very clear. He said Ukraine. He said Ukraine without any question. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1899222514569814244
This smelled like horseshit at the time.
That’s a happy coincidence. Why would Ukraine be behind it ? Makes no sense to me
When my old company had a cyber attack that breached our defences it was from St Petersburg.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
Well that's good of Lavrov.
Let's see how he changes his tune with another dozen trashed oil refineries...
Thinking about Trump's comments about buying a Tesla, I suppose it could survive, in the long-term, as a rightwing brand. But in that case it will be smaller than now, as the right wing don't like electric cars as much.
Don’t underestimate the power of the culture war to invert things (pun intended). It could become right-coded to have a Tesla home battery and max out on solar power.
The fossil fuel lobbies behind Trump wouldn't like that too much, though.
At the moment that market is only a few off-grid, backwoods and more independent-minded Trumpists, which is a relatively small category. Trump has support from massive fossil fuel lobby groups.
"The Fez" ? Seriously, a Fez is a hat, the Cheltenham Festival is the second most important race meeting of the year - after Royal Ascot of course.
I’ve built up a war chest for the Fez, by not buying any new pairs of boots for over 6 months now! Massive self control.
I’m taking a few days off from sheep and lambs. Though probably can’t get out of doing some Thursday.
A friend said, why don’t you (meaning me) organise special events where visitors can visit to see lambs gambolling about in spring sunshine - it would cheer people’s mood up. If I could find the time to put bunting up, and banners up saying welcome to the sight seeing wonders of lambing, please wipe your hands and feet on the way out - then maybe. Or maybe not, some people don’t live in the real world of UK Food Security.
Oh I see, "The Fez" is a colloquialism for "The Cheltenham Festival". Nice article, by the way.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
..Turnbull, former Prime Minister of 🇦🇺: "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"..
We know how to build submarines. Why aren't we making them for them?
The original plan was that the Australians would buy 3x US Virginia starting in 2030 which is now probably not going to happen. Trump will trouser the $500m they've already paid and tell them to get fucked.
They were then supposed to get 5x SSN-A which is a joint UK - Aus design starting in 2040. They can't have them any sooner due to lack of industrial capacity in UK and Australia. Who knows if that will happen once the costs and schedule start their inevitable explosion.
I wonder how much of this is nose-out-of-joint internecine Australian politics, and Turnbull cross that his baby was not kept in place?
Turnbull at least has more credibility on this than Paul Keating, former Ozzie PM who has since spent 15 years in the pay of the Chinese Government.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
"The Fez" ? Seriously, a Fez is a hat, the Cheltenham Festival is the second most important race meeting of the year - after Royal Ascot of course.
I’ve built up a war chest for the Fez, by not buying any new pairs of boots for over 6 months now! Massive self control.
I’m taking a few days off from sheep and lambs. Though probably can’t get out of doing some Thursday.
A friend said, why don’t you (meaning me) organise special events where visitors can visit to see lambs gambolling about in spring sunshine - it would cheer people’s mood up. If I could find the time to put bunting up, and banners up saying welcome to the sight seeing wonders of lambing, please wipe your hands and feet on the way out - then maybe. Or maybe not, some people don’t live in the real world of UK Food Security.
Oh I see, "The Fez" is a colloquialism for "The Cheltenham Festival". Nice article, by the way.
Gaby Hinsliff @gabyhinsliff.bsky.social · 14m almost wish i'd been planning to buy a tesla, just so that I could not buy it now in disgust, but as it is i'll just stick with my longstanding plan to not buy a tesla because by all accounts they're not very good
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
Well that's good of Lavrov.
Let's see how he changes his tune with another dozen trashed oil refineries...
Putin might as well really go for it, ask for the Dallas Cowboys ownership, Trump Tower, his face on Mount Rushmore and a dirty weekend with Melania and Ivanka and to have JDV dress as a clown for a week.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
Problem is, I can;t see how Putin is going to be shifted from those demands.
He will never allow Ukraine to e part of NATO, or the EU, and he will never give up the territory taken, and nothing can force him to militarily.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
"demilitarise"?
So the Russians can invade further in three years time and get to the Polish border?
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
Europe/Coalition of the Willing needs to make a counter-offer on the mining. Take far less than Trump. And it will police it. Meanwhile, it will provide the means (that is Taurus cruise missiles, Germany) to trash Russian hydrocarbons kit west of the Urals.
Then let's see how resilient that Russian economy is.
And quietly tell Trump this is great news for America as the consequent hiked price of oil means the US oil majors will be making out like bandits.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
Tice wants to deport 1 million illegal immigrants. The courts deport about 10,000 per year. The other 990,000 to be picked by Tice et al presumably.
We'll, if there are a million people here illegally, fair enough. Why does the number matter? It's a bit like saying there are 100,000 burglaries a year but we should only pursue 1,000 of them.
The number matters because Tice chose it, yet it is absurd within the current environment.
I am all for funding the courts and police properly, and to let them do their job rather than keep cutting them back to the point of inefficiency.
The main reasons for immigration policy failing are housing, incoherent government choices and lack of funding for the courts.
I can't imagine there are a million illegals living and working here. But I could be wrong.
Because I can't help myself and have to get involved in crazy conspiracy theory troll work, my twitter is awash with all sorts of MAGA loonery. They all hate elecric vehicles and solar batteries, think earth is flat with a dome firmament and space is fake. But.... They love ol' Elon to bits and are continually asking him to open the files that prove NASA is continually lying to us. Don't they know about Tesla and SpaceX?
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Philp repeats Goodwin's error (or should we call it a trick) of taking data on where someone was born and presuming that someone not born in the UK is "foreign". Someone might have been born in another country to British parents who were living abroad for a period. Boris Johnson was born in the US: is he foreign? When you look at the statistics, there are quite a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany. Some are German nationals who moved to the UK, but lots are British nationals with a parent in the armed forces who was stationed in Germany.
Next, Philp and Goodwin presume that you cannot change your nationality. If you immigrate to the UK, integrate into UK society, speak perfect English, renounce any other citizenship you have, Philp and Goodwin would still say you are "foreign". That is not how most British people think. Prince Philip, for example, most people would say he was British, even though he was born in Greece and of Danish heritage.
Philp adds a claim that these people "have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]". This is also wrong. It's hard to avoid VAT. Nearly everyone is paying VAT, whatever your income. You are not kicked out of social housing because you get a job, so you may have previously had little income, but be paying more now. Or you might have had a job in the past, become unemployed and then received social housing. It is very hard to determine how much tax these people will have paid and it will vary enormously, but most of them will have paid some tax.
Yeah two of my kids were born abroad so are presumably forrin according to Goodwin et al. They're a bit brown too so will no doubt be first on the transports if these delightful characters ever get their grubby hands on power.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
In effect, it must become a Russian satellite like Belarus.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
"demilitarise"?
So the Russians can invade further in three years time and get to the Polish border?
Zelensky should tell them to do one.
Europe must.
Ukraine should simply state their own red lines. Take it or leave it.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
As I said, use gunboat diplomacy if necessary, use tariffs, use whatever means necessary as far as blocking their legitimate business from operating within our borders if they choose not to take back their criminals. We need to be much, much more confrontational about it, and if they still choose not to do so, then fly military planes with an escort of fighter jets.
We are seen as a very soft target for foreign criminals and the countries they come from, we need to change that and ignoring the "international convention" on this is basically going to be necessary.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
It's also an overtly hostile act against a fellow NATO member, in the case of Albania. Which feels a bit Trump-y.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
Problem is, I can;t see how Putin is going to be shifted from those demands.
He will never allow Ukraine to e part of NATO, or the EU, and he will never give up the territory taken, and nothing can force him to militarily.
If Ukraine wasn't going to retake the land militarily the goal should have been to neutralise Russia's threat to the rest of Ukraine i.e by targeting its military and economic infrastructure. Ukraine is obviously doing this by using drones and has been somewhat successful. But they should have got far more support from us.
The Kremlin can't afford this war to go on forever. Another mobilisation won't be easy. They are running out of money. Ultimately it is a Muscovite Empire. If the whole thing is in danger of collapsing they'll come grovelling to the negotiating table.
I would have liked us to present them with a choice. They want to keep the territory they have illegally gained? Fine. Then we keep the sanctions (or even tighten them). I only hope that our dithering, half hearted, unclear approach has not entirely hamstrung us now.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
That's just his previous position from April 2022, with added exclusion of European peacekeepers, afaics.
Rubio and Trump are under his table sucking his penis.
Hence, promoting Tesla is bad, because it increases Musk's capacity to do immense harm.
Does it? I'm "promoting Tesla" and the share price is collapsing, thuis decreasing Musk's capacity to do immense harm. I'm not doing a very good job, am I?
Lets assume the sell-off continues for a while - and why not as the Trump economy destroys the market price of half of Wall Street. Lets further assume that Musk ends up at a fraction of his previous paper worth. Does that stop him? He owns Twitter and is empowered by Trump. Are you suggesting that he's only there because his net worth is above a line and if he drops below he will be out?
You really think that you are *that* influential? Of course you are not: but you are a *little* influential. People watch your channel and (hopefully) get informed. The rather large issue is that your channel is telling them to get a Tesla...
Musk's capacity to do damage is not binary. But he has massive expenses and loans to service; not the least for Twitter. Reducing his access to cash will not stop him doing harm, but it could, for instance, stop him bunging a billion at a far-right UK political party. It reduces his *capacity* to do harm.
And it's a shame it was not done a few years ago, when his character became obvious to everyone but the most devout fanboi.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
Because I can't help myself and have to get involved in crazy conspiracy theory troll work, my twitter is awash with all sorts of MAGA loonery. They all hate elecric vehicles and solar batteries, think earth is flat with a dome firmament and space is fake. But.... They love ol' Elon to bits and are continually asking him to open the files that prove NASA is continually lying to us. Don't they know about Tesla and SpaceX?
That just reinforces why I quit Twitter - a cesspool of lunatics.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
You can improve the welfare system but you won't save money in doing so. Most governments since Thatcher have pretended they can square the circle.
The effect of this measure will be to throw people who are struggling onto the scrap heap. Let's have some honesty about it. If you think that's worth it to save money, say so.
Back in the day when my two brothers in law were young and stupid, they used to mouth off about immigrants and about why the BNP were right.
I quietly asked them if they planned to be deported to Ireland or Spain as they are only 1/4 English. Well of course they didn't mean them, they meant deport the other migrants.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
MY understanding of the current situation is it's a crime with a custodial sentence of longer than 12 months which leads to deportation. Philp seems to be suggesting ANY criminal offence will trigger deportation so fare evasion for example.
That proposal is for foreign nationals, not illegal immigrants.
Surely illegal immigrants can be deported at any time they come to the notice of the authorities because they are, er, here illegally
Tice wants to deport 1 million illegal immigrants. The courts deport about 10,000 per year. The other 990,000 to be picked by Tice et al presumably.
We'll, if there are a million people here illegally, fair enough. Why does the number matter? It's a bit like saying there are 100,000 burglaries a year but we should only pursue 1,000 of them.
The number matters because Tice chose it, yet it is absurd within the current environment.
I am all for funding the courts and police properly, and to let them do their job rather than keep cutting them back to the point of inefficiency.
The main reasons for immigration policy failing are housing, incoherent government choices and lack of funding for the courts.
I can't imagine there are a million illegals living and working here. But I could be wrong.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
As I said, use gunboat diplomacy if necessary, use tariffs, use whatever means necessary as far as blocking their legitimate business from operating within our borders if they choose not to take back their criminals. We need to be much, much more confrontational about it, and if they still choose not to do so, then fly military planes with an escort of fighter jets.
We are seen as a very soft target for foreign criminals and the countries they come from, we need to change that and ignoring the "international convention" on this is basically going to be necessary.
In what way are we a "very soft target for foreign criminals"?
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
As I said, use gunboat diplomacy if necessary, use tariffs, use whatever means necessary as far as blocking their legitimate business from operating within our borders if they choose not to take back their criminals. We need to be much, much more confrontational about it, and if they still choose not to do so, then fly military planes with an escort of fighter jets.
It's very easy to deny a runway by parking trucks on it so I presume the next logical development of your outstanding plan is to chuck the returnees out of the back of an A400M with a parachute. Or maybe without.
It'd be far cheaper just to bribe the necessary Albanians politicians to take them back than, and I can't believe I'm writing this, invade Albania in order to return deportees there.
48% of London’s social housing is occupied by people who are foreign - and have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]
This is morally wrong. We can’t be the social housing provider for the world
Philp repeats Goodwin's error (or should we call it a trick) of taking data on where someone was born and presuming that someone not born in the UK is "foreign". Someone might have been born in another country to British parents who were living abroad for a period. Boris Johnson was born in the US: is he foreign? When you look at the statistics, there are quite a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany. Some are German nationals who moved to the UK, but lots are British nationals with a parent in the armed forces who was stationed in Germany.
Next, Philp and Goodwin presume that you cannot change your nationality. If you immigrate to the UK, integrate into UK society, speak perfect English, renounce any other citizenship you have, Philp and Goodwin would still say you are "foreign". That is not how most British people think. Prince Philip, for example, most people would say he was British, even though he was born in Greece and of Danish heritage.
Philp adds a claim that these people "have likely paid little or no tax [you generally have to be on low or no income to be in social housing]". This is also wrong. It's hard to avoid VAT. Nearly everyone is paying VAT, whatever your income. You are not kicked out of social housing because you get a job, so you may have previously had little income, but be paying more now. Or you might have had a job in the past, become unemployed and then received social housing. It is very hard to determine how much tax these people will have paid and it will vary enormously, but most of them will have paid some tax.
There's more to that - Philp's comment about "paid little or no tax" is as bad, because there is no routine eviction of people from social housing when their income rises. We occasionally get media outrage buses about MPs living in social housing, the one I remember best being Cabinet Minister Frank Dobson around 2010. But Social Housing is not meant to be transitional shelters for poor people.
It's just like Jenrick's baseless "two tier justice" garbage about pre-sentencing reports - dishonesty (techically it could be stupidity or ignorance, but I say they know what they are doing) to put out a nativist / racist dog whistle.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
It's also an overtly hostile act against a fellow NATO member, in the case of Albania. Which feels a bit Trump-y.
Gunboats is Palmerston-y.
(What with? They scrapped the Insects decades ago.)
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
Hold on, is there no duty on nations to receive back their own citizens written into international law. Probably not, it's all very keen on rights and obligations of wherever people are going to but that's one obligation that really should be in there. If nation A wishes to deport citizens of country B back to country B, country B should damn well be obliged to take them.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Nobody knows and anybody who says they do are lying. The one certainty is a global depression due to market panic.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
You're assuming Russia wants a "deal".
Bloomberg just reported that Putin has issued a set of maximalist demands: Ukraine must formally commit to neutrality, abandon any ambition to join NATO, demilitarise and recognise Russian claims to annexed territory. Lavrov has ruled out European peacekeepers.
Everyone has red lines until they are no longer red lines. Its like Brexit. Cameron went into the negotiations asking for some minor stuff and got very little. He would have been better off asking for far more. Its like the idea of a no deal Brexit. If the EU didn't believe we would ever just walk away then it changes how they negotiate.
The EU could claim (rightly, really) that we wanted to cherry pick the bits of the European project that we liked but not have the bad stuff, and we did. But both sides needed concessions really. We have things that they want too.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
You just fly them there and land them in their home country, consequences be dammed. It's really time to be more confrontational about these things. If Albania doesn't want to take its criminals back then that's that not our problem, we just force them to do it by gunboat if necessary.
Just so I understand you - you are advocating the UK (presumably) paying for a flight to take off and head to a country and try to land without permission from local air traffic control thereby risking a serious incident.
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
As I said, use gunboat diplomacy if necessary, use tariffs, use whatever means necessary as far as blocking their legitimate business from operating within our borders if they choose not to take back their criminals. We need to be much, much more confrontational about it, and if they still choose not to do so, then fly military planes with an escort of fighter jets.
It's very easy to deny a runway by parking trucks on it so I presume the next logical development of your outstanding plan is to chuck the returnees out of the back of an A400M with a parachute. Or maybe without.
It'd be far cheaper just to bribe the necessary Albanians politicians to take them back than, and I can't believe I'm writing this, invade Albania in order to return deportees there.
You sure we have the capacity to mount an invasion of Albania ?
I would be really embarrassing if we failed to pull it off.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
Really? Poles and Romanians don't look different.
Actually I think they do, to an extent. And some older folk find having their towns "over-run" by people mostly speaking foreign languages to be something that they didn't ask for and don't want.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
There would nothing more dangerous than to allow Putin to use the threat of using nuclear weapons to gain territory.
Mind you, I would not be surprised to see the current US administration support the threatened use of nuclear weapons by Russia against European nations.
"Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit"
You can improve the welfare system but you won't save money in doing so. Most governments since Thatcher have pretended they can square the circle.
The effect of this measure will be to throw people who are struggling onto the scrap heap. Let's have some honesty about it. If you think that's worth it to save money, say so.
How much of the welfare spend is actually money spent on housing for people? Surely this is one of the reasons its so expensive - its the same crisis thats hitting people's ability to buy a house.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Starmer says benefit system unfair and indefensible
Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said the government could not "shrug its shoulders and look away".
Addressing Labour MPs on Monday evening, the prime minister said the current welfare system was "the worst of all worlds", discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill".
He may be right but leftwing Labour MPs will rebel and he risks leaking some more leftwing voters to the Greens on a tough on welfare agenda
He is right, and if they do something about this, I will applaud them, my dislike of the Government notwithstanding.
This crisis period for Reform is making Labour think it might be able to get re-elected - I doubt it, but if it results in popular and sensible measures, I'm all for it.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
Really? Poles and Romanians don't look different.
Actually I think they do, to an extent. And some older folk find having their towns "over-run" by people mostly speaking foreign languages to be something that they didn't ask for and don't want.
I had a Polish carer for a while; until she spoke she was indistinguishable from any other Essex female of a similar age.
And at one stage in my life I lived in a town with three Czechoslovak (then) emigre doctors. Same applied; indistinguishable until they opened their mouths.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Er, you were clearly demanding "a better job of rebutting" the "selective" and "duplicitous reporting" and "misrepresenting" of such decisions.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
Why are you so convinced about him using a nuclear bomb? Just think. What would be the consequences for him of doing so?
Nobody knows and anybody who says they do are lying. The one certainty is a global depression due to market panic.
You are right: nobody knows. But we can make an educated guess; but I'd say it's very unlikely that Putin would use either a tactical or strategic nuke. The utility of them on the battlefield is low, the political ramifications from their use far too high, and the consequences too uncertain.
I confess I'm no expert on"right wing" politics but how would any new party set up by Lowe and Habib, whether funded by Musk or not, be different to Reform?
I've seen "mass deportations" mentioned - this is one of Trump's slogans but I've no idea how many people have been deported, to where and how much it has cost the US?
The same questions apply here - who are we seeking to deport? I note the Conservatives have finally decided any foreign national committing a crime will be deported and any country who refuses to take back their citizens will have its own citizens barred from obtaining visas for the UK.
Quite apart from the international legality of these proposals (about which I'm unclear) are we then going to see tit-for-tat repatriations of British nationals in foreign jails? What about dual passport holders? It's a superficially popular policy though not free as presumably if a criminal from Mali or Uruguay needs tobe deported, we'll have to pay to send them back to their country of "origin".
Foreign criminals represent about 12% of the current prison population so that would make some space but presumably for the 2,000 or so British citizens detained in foreign jails.
It might be difficult if any British citizen committing a crime abroad is also liable to immediate repatriation so a superficially popular policy needs plenty of thought. What if a group of lads gets into a brawl in Benidorm and they all get arrested and charged with criminal damage. Presumably, if convicted, Spain could throw them all out and they'd arrive back in Luton.
I've heard the term "re-migration" mentioned - there was once a plan to pay migrants to go back to their country of origin. Could we, for example, pay Syrian refugees to return home? Would they want to go? How much would it cost?
What Tice et al mean is that instead of courts deciding who is in an illegal immigrant it should be up to the Daily Mail. Soon to be replaced with Twitter.
Every party supports deporting illegal immigrants as decided by a court, always have done, always will do.
It's not about illegal immigrants. It's about people who look different.
Really? Poles and Romanians don't look different.
Actually I think they do, to an extent. And some older folk find having their towns "over-run" by people mostly speaking foreign languages to be something that they didn't ask for and don't want.
I had a Polish carer for a while; until she spoke she was indistinguishable from any other Essex female of a similar age.
And at one stage in my life I lived in a town with three Czechoslovak (then) emigre doctors. Same applied; indistinguishable until they opened their mouths.
Must have been odd, having all these foreigners hanging about not saying anything.
That's why Johnson is whining about the Democrats not supporting his partisan bill.
Despite @DOGE’s findings of loony left-wing USAID programs, the Republican spending bill continues to fund the very foreign aid @elonmusk proposes to cut! The bill continues spending at the inflated pandemic levels and will add $2T to the debt this year. Count me as a hell no!.. https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1899113680848961888
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight are very serious foreign criminals who have not been deported for bizarre reasons. He may be simplifying the full explanation for the judge's decision but I'd think 80-90% of people would agree with the general thrust.
The cases Goodwin tends to highlight have usually not been deported for sensible reasons, but someone has selectively picked something out of the court's ruling to make it seem like a bizarre reason. There is a lot of duplicitous reporting; not merely "simplifying the full explanation" but misrepresenting it wholesale.
Well people need to start doing a better job of rebutting.
If one reads PB there is plenty of rebuttal.
I've not seen many rebuttals of the judicial decisions allowing foreign criminals to stay.
Er, you were clearly demanding "a better job of rebutting" the "selective" and "duplicitous reporting" and "misrepresenting" of such decisions.
Are you suggesting bondegezou has done that? I would expect detail not just saying someone is wrong.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that Ukraine will have to give up land seized by Russia as part of any peace deal as he flew to Saudi Arabia for make-or-break talks
On that Rubio is right, no chance Russia agrees to any ceasefire without keeping the land it has already gained
Why is the US accepting Russian conditions before negotiations have even started ? While actively attacking Ukraine's.
You might as well say there's no chance of Russia agreeing a ceasefire without Ukraine's capitulation.
Russia wants all the regions it has partly gained not just the bits it has now occupied.
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
Which is why it is so disgusting that the US is seeking an unjust peace. Team Orange seem to forget that there are purposes in fighting a war. They are clearly selling Ukraine down the river. For Ukraine to continue killing Russians degrades their army and makes it unlikely they could try it on anywhere else any time soon. Also condemns millions of Ukrainians to occupation and genocide
The only way Russia can be defeated is to force Russian troops out of Ukraine entirely but Putin would likely use a nuclear bomb of some form if he looked like losing that badly.
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
There would nothing more dangerous than to allow Putin to use the threat of using nuclear weapons to gain territory.
Mind you, I would not be surprised to see the current US administration support the threatened use of nuclear weapons by Russia against European nations.
They already are, in effect.
I’d have thought if the war turns that badly against Russia that they face losing most of their conquests (and that seems highly unlikely now they have Trump on side), then Putin would be rather distracted by domestic events back in Moscow.
Comments
Both sides will have to compromise for a peace deal
ETA: I think - *think* - their figures might work if you count Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as foreign.
It did make me wonder why they deserved lifelong accommodation in a flat worth approximately £1M.
The neighbourhood as a whole was at least 50% council owned Georgian terraces. Probably about £1B in real estate.
They are paying in but won't get it back. Hence the move to workplace pensions.
I am all for funding the courts and police properly, and to let them do their job rather than keep cutting them back to the point of inefficiency.
The main reasons for immigration policy failing are housing, incoherent government choices and lack of funding for the courts.
It's about whether they can trust a guy who has threatened to invade his ally neighbour. Or a country which has just broken an alliance which previously lasted for seven decades.
Thinking about Trump's comments about buying a Tesla, I suppose it could survive, in the long-term, as a rightwing brand. But in that case it will be smaller than now, as the right wing don't like electric cars as much.
I'm not much bothered about most of the farmers in the IHT row, as better planning will sort their problems, but those elderly farmers (and other business owners too) who planned long term according to the law as it stood and now don't have the lifespan left to rearrange have been absolutely treated abominably. This should be fixed by a 10 year transition period.
The young are paying for pensions for the old that they will not get back themselves. It is fair to question if we can afford that now.
Let's see how he changes his tune with another dozen trashed oil refineries...
At the moment that market is only a few off-grid, backwoods and more independent-minded Trumpists, which is a relatively small category. Trump has support from massive fossil fuel lobby groups.
Turnbull at least has more credibility on this than Paul Keating, former Ozzie PM who has since spent 15 years in the pay of the Chinese Government.
Rubio will endorse those demands, so long as the US can strip-mine whatever is left of Ukraine.
·
14m
almost wish i'd been planning to buy a tesla, just so that I could not buy it now in disgust, but as it is i'll just stick with my longstanding plan to not buy a tesla because by all accounts they're not very good
https://bsky.app/profile/gabyhinsliff.bsky.social/post/3lk3ws7qwlk2u
Let's assume they land - the local Police surround the plane and go in taking off and detaining the British crew by force and seizing the plane as an asset.
How is any part of this a viable policy?
"Confrontational" doesn't mean effective, practical or sensible - it usually means a lot of shouting and nothing getting done.
He will never allow Ukraine to e part of NATO, or the EU, and he will never give up the territory taken, and nothing can force him to militarily.
So the Russians can invade further in three years time and get to the Polish border?
Zelensky should tell them to do one.
Then let's see how resilient that Russian economy is.
And quietly tell Trump this is great news for America as the consequent hiked price of oil means the US oil majors will be making out like bandits.
They love ol' Elon to bits and are continually asking him to open the files that prove NASA is continually lying to us.
Don't they know about Tesla and SpaceX?
Ukraine should simply state their own red lines. Take it or leave it.
We are seen as a very soft target for foreign criminals and the countries they come from, we need to change that and ignoring the "international convention" on this is basically going to be necessary.
https://x.com/jwhandley17/status/1898858715115098253
About a third of the population, but still.
The Kremlin can't afford this war to go on forever. Another mobilisation won't be easy. They are running out of money. Ultimately it is a Muscovite Empire. If the whole thing is in danger of collapsing they'll come grovelling to the negotiating table.
I would have liked us to present them with a choice. They want to keep the territory they have illegally gained? Fine. Then we keep the sanctions (or even tighten them). I only hope that our dithering, half hearted, unclear approach has not entirely hamstrung us now.
Rubio and Trump are under his table sucking his penis.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-2022-peace-proposal-was-a-blueprint-for-the-destruction-of-ukraine/
Musk's capacity to do damage is not binary. But he has massive expenses and loans to service; not the least for Twitter. Reducing his access to cash will not stop him doing harm, but it could, for instance, stop him bunging a billion at a far-right UK political party. It reduces his *capacity* to do harm.
And it's a shame it was not done a few years ago, when his character became obvious to everyone but the most devout fanboi.
So Don'tBuyATesla...
The effect of this measure will be to throw people who are struggling onto the scrap heap. Let's have some honesty about it. If you think that's worth it to save money, say so.
I quietly asked them if they planned to be deported to Ireland or Spain as they are only 1/4 English. Well of course they didn't mean them, they meant deport the other migrants.
https://www.manutd.com/en/videos/detail/lord-noman-foster-outlines-his-vision-for-the-new-100-000-stadium?t=y&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=link_post&utm_campaign=muwebsite
It'd be far cheaper just to bribe the necessary Albanians politicians to take them back than, and I can't believe I'm writing this, invade Albania in order to return deportees there.
It's just like Jenrick's baseless "two tier justice" garbage about pre-sentencing reports - dishonesty (techically it could be stupidity or ignorance, but I say they know what they are doing) to put out a nativist / racist dog whistle.
(What with? They scrapped the Insects decades ago.)
Otherwise it has to be some division of boundaries of territory in which neither Ukraine nor Russia get all they want for peace
The EU could claim (rightly, really) that we wanted to cherry pick the bits of the European project that we liked but not have the bad stuff, and we did. But both sides needed concessions really. We have things that they want too.
I would be really embarrassing if we failed to pull it off.
Mind you, I would not be surprised to see the current US administration support the threatened use of nuclear weapons by Russia against European nations.
This crisis period for Reform is making Labour think it might be able to get re-elected - I doubt it, but if it results in popular and sensible measures, I'm all for it.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1899434239281574282?t=90CGNo4aGetN4U0tVG2gTA&s=19
We’ll happily send back their watery beer.
Effective immediately, we are removing all American products from BC Liquor Store shelves.
https://x.com/Dave_Eby/status/1899188455437160920
And at one stage in my life I lived in a town with three Czechoslovak (then) emigre doctors. Same applied; indistinguishable until they opened their mouths.
"due to the huge airstrike...
russian rail is shut down around moscow, for the first time ever!!!!"
https://x.com/secretsqrl123/status/1899339385511788577
He wants his regime to survive ...
Labour 24 [-2]
Reform 23 [-2]
Conservative 22 [+1]
Lib Dem 15 [+1]
Actually at Abergavenny on way to Cardiff for lunch before home just after tea
Great service on TFW and lovely landscapes
Despite @DOGE’s findings of loony left-wing USAID programs, the Republican spending bill continues to fund the very foreign aid @elonmusk proposes to cut! The bill continues spending at the inflated pandemic levels and will add $2T to the debt this year. Count me as a hell no!..
https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1899113680848961888
Rand is correct. I’m a No as well on this CR.
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1899121969385079182
I’d have thought if the war turns that badly against Russia that they face losing most of their conquests (and that seems highly unlikely now they have Trump on side), then Putin would be rather distracted by domestic events back in Moscow.