I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Mark Carney promised to cap the number of foreign workers and foreign students. This is rapidly becoming the global technocratic consensus because everyone can see what it leads to otherwise.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Including students in immigration figures was a bit foolish, in retrospect.
The public aren’t so worried about overseas students . The boat issue is the main problem but in Labours desperation to look tough they’re picking on a sector which brings huge benefits to the UK .
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
Fair enough to clamp down on that but this government seems likely to cause a lot of collateral damage .
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”
My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇
I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
Good morning
Not anymore apparently
Reform UK has launched a campaign against net zero developments in rural areas, dealing a significant blow to Ed Miliband. Deputy leader Richard Tice announced that the party will use its newfound control over ten councils to obstruct renewable projects at every turn. The MP for Boston and Skegness plans to pen letters to potential developers involved in Lincolnshire projects following Reform's landmark victories in the local elections on Friday
He said: "I'm now going to write again to them, saying now that we've won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas. If you think that you're going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it."
He added: "You're going to waste your money. It's going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.
"Whether it's planning blockages, whether it's judicial reviews, whether it's lawsuits, whether it's health and safety notices, we will use every available legal measure to an extreme way in order to frustrate these people."
Mr Tice insisted that any new cables in Lincolnshire should be placed underground or "around the Wash offshore", which he claimed would be "the smarter, quicker thing to do".
He also told the outlet of a meeting with senior figures in the National Grid, informing them about the party's plans if it wins the next general election.
In February, Reform outlined its energy policy, which proposed taxes on the renewables sector and new legislation to prevent new pylons from being built.
Prediction: Lincolnshire County Council will make a lot of noise here, but will end up wasting their time and money. And no council actually has any money to spare.
Excellent opposition politics, a martyrdom complex is great for getting voters cross, but not serious government.
The "Reform could have filled X potholes with they money they wasted on lawyers" leaflets basically write themselves.
Need to confront these folks with reality. Cancel all government investment in Greater Lincolnshire and put them on a regional tariff linked to the spot price of gas.
Reform will probably be the government pretty soon at this rate.
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
If you’re looking for counterfactuals from the 1930’s the most important is that if Britain and France had taken a hard line with the Nazis from the outset, the number of refugees would have been minuscule.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
Why would they get their phones out with lecture playing if they weren't listening to it and only had to be logged in? Somewhat performative, no?
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
If you’re looking for counterfactuals from the 1930’s the most important is that if Britain and France had taken a hard line with the Nazis from the outset, the number of refugees would have been minuscule.
But today we'd simply open a scheme for those fleeing from there.
A bigger issue in its day was that antisemitism was still a thing, even here. Which limited generosity to Jewish refugees.
Trump to hit non US made movies with a 100% tariff and reopen Alcatrez "Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7e2z1rxyo
Given he's reopening Alcatraz, and Sean Connery was in it, I hope we get a discount on The Rock, though.
Was the Rock Connery’s last movie as James Bond? Discuss.
Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.
Reform, in a nutshell.
They won't stand four years of this until an election.
Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.
Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?
A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.
Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .
Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
Indeed. Consider a case where you pay for your bins but the neighbours don't pay for theirs. Disease and vermin are rampant.
See also fire brigades. They used to have private insurance for putting out fires, but the problems of your neighbour's house setting alight uninsured became obvious.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
The bar for it being considered a moral obligation is much higher than is codified in the asylum system. People in Northern France are not in mortal danger.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
Why would they get their phones out with lecture playing if they weren't listening to it and only had to be logged in? Somewhat performative, no?
I suspect the "students" don't 100% know how their attendance is being recorded - so it's safest to keep "attend" the entire lecture and make sure you pay attention enough to log out quickly when the lecture ends
Today is Cinco de Mayo in the US, and, to some extent, in Mexico: "More popular in the United States than in Mexico,[3] Cinco de Mayo has become associated with the celebration of Mexican-American culture.[4][5][6] Celebrations began in Columbia, California, where they have been observed annually since 1862.[7] The day gained nationwide popularity beyond those of Mexican-American heritage in the 1980s due to advertising campaigns by beer, wine, and tequila companies; today, Cinco de Mayo generates beer sales on par with the Super Bowl." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Or, as I sometimes call it, Drinko de Mayo. The Washington state police have announced that they will be looking hard for "impaired" drivers today. As they should.
Which is unfortunate, since the history behind the celebration is worth celebrating -- unless you are a fan of Napoleon III.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
We have the evidence of various charities that conditions for migrants in France are intolerable.
Which makes France, in my view a failed state.
A failed state with oil. We all know this one, don’t we, children?
Trump to hit non US made movies with a 100% tariff and reopen Alcatrez "Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7e2z1rxyo
Given he's reopening Alcatraz, and Sean Connery was in it, I hope we get a discount on The Rock, though.
Was the Rock Connery’s last movie as James Bond? Discuss.
Absolutely a James Bond movie. The timeline as described in the film precisely matches the documented movements of James Bond in the Connery movies. Remember that Never Say Never Again isn't canon and doesn't count.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
Correct, but we still have an obligation to take a share. Problem is, if we agreed to take X% of successful asylum seekers in France in exchange for stopping the boats, it would only encourage them to go preferentially to France. So the french wouldn't agree.
If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....
A conclave then
Pope-picking starts Wednesday.
To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.
If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.
If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.
After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.
More like Tory leadership elections. Maybe the cardinals should whittle it down to 2 pope candidates then put the final vote to the entire world Catholic communion.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
The problem is that the Process State finds it very difficult to differentiate between real degrees and abuse. This is because the darn criminals read the rule book and implement ways round it faster than the rules are re-Britten
If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....
A conclave then
Pope-picking starts Wednesday.
To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.
If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.
If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.
After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.
More like Tory leadership elections. Maybe the cardinals should whittle it down to 2 pope candidates then put the final vote to the entire world Catholic communion.
How could that possibly go wrong?
At the moment, Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch are ineligible for the papacy.
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
If you’re looking for counterfactuals from the 1930’s the most important is that if Britain and France had taken a hard line with the Nazis from the outset, the number of refugees would have been minuscule.
But today we'd simply open a scheme for those fleeing from there.
A bigger issue in its day was that antisemitism was still a thing, even here. Which limited generosity to Jewish refugees.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
Why would they get their phones out with lecture playing if they weren't listening to it and only had to be logged in? Somewhat performative, no?
In case the lecturer asked for the electronic equivalent of "put your hands up"?
The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”
My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇
The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.
A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
Which is stupid, in another way.
Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.
For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.
Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.
Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
My plan
1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc 2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you. 3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo. 4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime 5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.
That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
The UK consists of nearly 200 inhabited islands. We could establish a Summerisle-style community for them.
Sumer is icumen in Lhude sing cuccu Groweþ sed and bloweþ med and springþ þe wde nu Sing cuccu!
Sadly, the cycles (just like elections) turn. A riposte courtesy of Ezra Pound:
“Winter is icummen in, Lhude sing Goddamm, Raineth drop and staineth slop And how the wind doth ramm! Sing: Goddamm. Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us, An ague hath my ham. Freezeth river, turneth liver Damn you, sing: Goddamm. Goddamm, Goddamm, tis why I am, Goddamm. So 'gainst the winter's balm Sing Goddamm, damm, sing Goddamm Sing Goddamm, sing Goddamm, DAMM.”
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
Correct, but we still have an obligation to take a share. Problem is, if we agreed to take X% of successful asylum seekers in France in exchange for stopping the boats, it would only encourage them to go preferentially to France. So the french wouldn't agree.
Which is why we should be taken them directly from a Turkish or Syrian refugee camp...
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
Why would they get their phones out with lecture playing if they weren't listening to it and only had to be logged in? Somewhat performative, no?
In case the lecturer asked for the electronic equivalent of "put your hands up"?
In that case they have to listen.
I am a little sceptical about "students" doing this, when it's easier to get a Social Care worker visa in the first place.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
If you’re looking for counterfactuals from the 1930’s the most important is that if Britain and France had taken a hard line with the Nazis from the outset, the number of refugees would have been minuscule.
But today we'd simply open a scheme for those fleeing from there.
A bigger issue in its day was that antisemitism was still a thing, even here. Which limited generosity to Jewish refugees.
We don't like to talk about that anymore.
Islamophobia is a substantial part of opposition to asylum seekers now.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
We have no moral obligation whatsoever. That’s in your head
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
Deny those with no valid connection to Britain.
Non-refoulment means we couldn't deport people who got here - if they face danger, even if we don't allow their claims to even begin.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
Domestic fees are too low - how however are you going to fix the problem given that the current fees are a work of fiction that are in reality paid by the Government..
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
The bar for it being considered a moral obligation is much higher than is codified in the asylum system. People in Northern France are not in mortal danger.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
Not all overseas students are equal. Chinese students have a 99% chance of returning, those from the Subcontinent or Africa are much less likely to return, and much more likely to bring dependents.
Whatever rules we apply to different classes of visa, we require much better enforcement. The Home Office is simply not funded or staffed to track all visa holders, audit whether they are really doing what they should (such as checks on students attendance and academic progress) and to deport overstayers.
If we want that sort of system we have to be willing to fund it.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
And that's because we don't want to pay taxes.
(OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but that's the root of the issue. As a nation, there are lots of things we want- higher education, fairly early retirement, social care and so on- without paying what they cost.)
As long as there is a group of shysters prepared to say "it's easy, we can have more good things and lower taxes and all we have to do is clamp down on outcast group X", it's damn hard for anyone who believes in arithmetic to win the debate.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
The problem is that the Process State finds it very difficult to differentiate between real degrees and abuse. This is because the darn criminals read the rule book and implement ways round it faster than the rules are re-Britten
So you limit the qualifying institutions to trusted entities. Say Russell Group + the first tier of red bricks.
It’s unlikely, for example, that Fenland Poly would need to rely on dodgy visa schemes to make the numbers work
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Possibly, although the problem is that would mean that most asylum claims would come to the UK vs other western countries.
I liked Cameron’s idea of a hard cap taken directly from refugee camps.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
We have no moral obligation whatsoever. That’s in your head
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
Deny those with no valid connection to Britain.
Non-refoulment means we couldn't deport people who got here - if they face danger, even if we don't allow their claims to even begin.
Deportation is a different issue, (it being effectively impossible to deport to Afghanistan for example), but such a person would have no right to government accommodation or support, or to permanent residence.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
Domestic fees are too low - how however are you going to fix the problem given that the current fees are a work of fiction that are in reality paid by the Government..
I would have the government pay for courses that they deem add value to society. You can have different rates for different courses and allow people to pay all or top up the government contribution as required.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Possibly, although the problem is that would mean that most asylum claims would come to the UK vs other western countries.
I liked Cameron’s idea of a hard cap taken directly from refugee camps.
In such refugee crises, we could set up temporary Consulates in those camps.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
Not all overseas students are equal. Chinese students have a 99% chance of returning, those from the Subcontinent or Africa are much less likely to return, and much more likely to bring dependents.
Whatever rules we apply to different classes of visa, we require much better enforcement. The Home Office is simply not funded or staffed to track all visa holders, audit whether they are really doing what they should (such as checks on students attendance and academic progress) and to deport overstayers.
If we want that sort of system we have to be willing to fund it.
That’s why you restrict the institutions that can grant visas - to manage the numbers. I’d also remove the automatic right to bring dependents: make it something you can apply to do
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
Deny those with no valid connection to Britain.
Non-refoulment means we couldn't deport people who got here - if they face danger, even if we don't allow their claims to even begin.
Yes you can, if you're willing to deport them to a third party nation.
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
The problem is that the Process State finds it very difficult to differentiate between real degrees and abuse. This is because the darn criminals read the rule book and implement ways round it faster than the rules are re-Britten
So you limit the qualifying institutions to trusted entities. Say Russell Group + the first tier of red bricks.
It’s unlikely, for example, that Fenland Poly would need to rely on dodgy visa schemes to make the numbers work
Major universities (including Oxbridge) have a nice business (or used to have) renting facilities to various dubious outfits. “Summer schools” etc.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
And that's because we don't want to pay taxes.
(OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but that's the root of the issue. As a nation, there are lots of things we want- higher education, fairly early retirement, social care and so on- without paying what they cost.)
As long as there is a group of shysters prepared to say "it's easy, we can have more good things and lower taxes and all we have to do is clamp down on outcast group X", it's damn hard for anyone who believes in arithmetic to win the debate.
I actually think the root cause is Blair’s target that 50% of people should have degrees. That effectively labelled everyone without one as “below average”.
Reduce the size of the university sector to one that adds value to those that attend and try to break the mindset that even entry level jobs need degrees. In many cases they don’t
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Including students in immigration figures was a bit foolish, in retrospect.
Not really, since lots of them are simply buying entry with the course.
How about restricting the institutions that can offer visa-qualifying student places?
A pretty simple fix that would eliminate the vast number of abuses such as that business in Oxford that was in the news a couple of weeks ago
The university that subcontracted them should lose its status in terms of overseas student visas entirely.
Another possible solution would be to have Parliament decide a fixed quantity of student visas it is willing to issue annually, then have Universities bid on how many of those they are willing to sponsor - with the sponsorship fees being added onto the tuition fees.
Those that are genuine degrees may be willing to pay for the sponsorship of a visa. Those that are not, would not.
And if its a fixed quantity, then the number is known in advance and consistent.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
Deny those with no valid connection to Britain.
Non-refoulment means we couldn't deport people who got here - if they face danger, even if we don't allow their claims to even begin.
Deportation is a different issue, (it being effectively impossible to deport to Afghanistan for example), but such a person would have no right to government accommodation or support, or to permanent residence.
So they just live on the streets for decades as a permanent underclass? Or you let them work to support themselves and increase the pull factor? Either is undesirable.
How do we feel about the racket of Chinese snooker players? Coming over here taking our money, not learning the language, humiliating the hapless locals?
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Ok, now you have 2,000,000 asylum claims a year, not 100,000. What now?
Deny those with no valid connection to Britain.
Non-refoulment means we couldn't deport people who got here - if they face danger, even if we don't allow their claims to even begin.
Deportation is a different issue, (it being effectively impossible to deport to Afghanistan for example), but such a person would have no right to government accommodation or support, or to permanent residence.
So they just live on the streets for decades as a permanent underclass? Or you let them work to support themselves and increase the pull factor? Either is undesirable.
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
If you’re looking for counterfactuals from the 1930’s the most important is that if Britain and France had taken a hard line with the Nazis from the outset, the number of refugees would have been minuscule.
But today we'd simply open a scheme for those fleeing from there.
A bigger issue in its day was that antisemitism was still a thing, even here. Which limited generosity to Jewish refugees.
We don't like to talk about that anymore.
Islamophobia is a substantial part of opposition to asylum seekers now.
And still exists in patches on the far-Left today. But, no - we're taking significant numbers from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
Funnily enough people are a little more reserved about taking large numbers of people from countries who have attitudes that might be anathema to ours.
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
And that's because we don't want to pay taxes.
(OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but that's the root of the issue. As a nation, there are lots of things we want- higher education, fairly early retirement, social care and so on- without paying what they cost.)
As long as there is a group of shysters prepared to say "it's easy, we can have more good things and lower taxes and all we have to do is clamp down on outcast group X", it's damn hard for anyone who believes in arithmetic to win the debate.
I actually think the root cause is Blair’s target that 50% of people should have degrees. That effectively labelled everyone without one as “below average”.
Reduce the size of the university sector to one that adds value to those that attend and try to break the mindset that even entry level jobs need degrees. In many cases they don’t
Tertiary education rates of 50% are common to all developed economies, particularly service oriented ones. I don't think Britons more thick than other nations.
There are major issues around quality, content and supervision of those courses, but the numbers are about right.
One issue is that we have a culture of going away to university rather than attending from home, so the costs are a lot higher. In many countries students atrend local universities. Its probably better social mobility as a result (though the bank of mum and dad heavily in demand for anyone studying in London), but that also denudes smaller towns of their brighter kids, leaving them left behind.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
We have no moral obligation whatsoever. That’s in your head
Morals are intangible, correct.
I don't think we have a universal moral obligation. It's too big, wide and impractical.
You could make an even better one that no-one should starve to death, and Britain had a duty to fund or intervene to stop that too.
We can only do what we can do and we have to choose to do it with public support.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
We have no moral obligation whatsoever. That’s in your head
Morals are intangible, correct.
I don't think we have a universal moral obligation. It's too big, wide and impractical.
You could make an even better one that no-one should starve to death, and Britain had a duty to fund or intervene to stop that too.
We can only do what we can do and we have to choose to do it with public support.
Are you saying universal moral obligations are pure Kant?
I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.
Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .
Then their cost base is too high and domestic fees too low.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
And that's because we don't want to pay taxes.
(OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but that's the root of the issue. As a nation, there are lots of things we want- higher education, fairly early retirement, social care and so on- without paying what they cost.)
As long as there is a group of shysters prepared to say "it's easy, we can have more good things and lower taxes and all we have to do is clamp down on outcast group X", it's damn hard for anyone who believes in arithmetic to win the debate.
I actually think the root cause is Blair’s target that 50% of people should have degrees. That effectively labelled everyone without one as “below average”.
Reduce the size of the university sector to one that adds value to those that attend and try to break the mindset that even entry level jobs need degrees. In many cases they don’t
It's a good idea that we should be a high education society. But, instead of that leading to lots more science, engineering, medicine and high arts jobs - as intended- to boost the economy and growth it was far easier to launch joke degrees and drop admission standards to meet the target.
How do we feel about the racket of Chinese snooker players? Coming over here taking our money, not learning the language, humiliating the hapless locals?
Zhao Xintong has lived in Sheffield since 2016 and speaks english fine. Were it not for China's unenlightened attitude to dual citizenship, he would probably be British by now.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
I would make asylum claims valid only if made at a British Embassy or Consulate abroad.
Possibly, although the problem is that would mean that most asylum claims would come to the UK vs other western countries.
I liked Cameron’s idea of a hard cap taken directly from refugee camps.
In such refugee crises, we could set up temporary Consulates in those camps.
To some extent you are splitting hairs. But IIRC with Cameron’s scheme we didn’t take applications, but worked with charities to identify those most at risk (women & children, needing medical intervention, etc).
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
The problem is that the Process State finds it very difficult to differentiate between real degrees and abuse. This is because the darn criminals read the rule book and implement ways round it faster than the rules are re-Britten
So you limit the qualifying institutions to trusted entities. Say Russell Group + the first tier of red bricks.
It’s unlikely, for example, that Fenland Poly would need to rely on dodgy visa schemes to make the numbers work
Major universities (including Oxbridge) have a nice business (or used to have) renting facilities to various dubious outfits. “Summer schools” etc.
Sure but they wouldn’t be able to sub-contract visa rights under my scheme
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
It's a sorry state that there is so much both sides could do together. Israel used to allow many to cross the border to work and now can't trust/doesn't trust the population due to the zealots on both sides both within Israel and overseas.
Bugger me, Bancroft must have put sandpaper on his fingers* the way they're sticking at the moment. That's his second sensational catch, not counting the fairly routine one as well.
*Umpires - I do not mean this quite as literally as it was at Cape Town.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
It's a sorry state that there is so much both sides could do together. Israel used to allow many to cross the border to work and now can't trust/doesn't trust the population due to the zealots on both sides both within Israel and overseas.
With Netanyahu we can be fairly sure he doesn't care about his responsibilities, and he seems to be capturing much of the Israeli government and a fairly large proportion of the population too.
One reason why Hamas were utterly insane to launch the Yom Kippur attacks is because Netanyahu was always likely to see them as an opportunity to do just this. No Gaza, no possibility of a Palestinian state. The best the West Bank could hope for is some kind of devolved settlement within Israel.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
It's a sorry state that there is so much both sides could do together. Israel used to allow many to cross the border to work and now can't trust/doesn't trust the population due to the zealots on both sides both within Israel and overseas.
With Netanyahu we can be fairly sure he doesn't care about his responsibilities, and he seems to be capturing much of the Israeli government and a fairly large proportion of the population too.
One reason why Hamas were utterly insane to launch the Yom Kippur attacks is because Netanyahu was always likely to see them as an opportunity to do just this. No Gaza, no possibility of a Palestinian state. The best the West Bank could hope for is some kind of devolved settlement within Israel.
The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”
My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇
I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
They may think they are a single issue party, but if you plan to govern the UK you govern half the economy of the nation. So in addition to immigration as a sideline you have to run health, pensions, the provision of the means to pay drink and drug bills for workshy wasters, military, late book returns to the library and pot holes. And social care. And dog fouling.
"How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action Even before his call for a net zero ‘reset’, there had been criticism of ex-PM’s lucrative links with fossil fuel nations Fiona Harvey, environment editor"
If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.
It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
It is quite desperate
Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties
So: end it
His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.
We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.
It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.
While I agree with that in general, I think it's well worth remembering that while the UK accepted quite a few Jewish refugees in the 1930s, they turned away a lot more. The Daily Mail described the "flood" of German Jews "pouring" into the country as an outrage.
So, how sure can you really be that we would accept those fleeing a fascist regime?
"How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action Even before his call for a net zero ‘reset’, there had been criticism of ex-PM’s lucrative links with fossil fuel nations Fiona Harvey, environment editor"
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
We have no moral obligation whatsoever. That’s in your head
Morals are intangible, correct.
I don't think we have a universal moral obligation. It's too big, wide and impractical.
You could make an even better one that no-one should starve to death, and Britain had a duty to fund or intervene to stop that too.
We can only do what we can do and we have to choose to do it with public support.
Are you saying universal moral obligations are pure Kant?
Very good. However, universal obligations in Kant's thought do not ascribe a universal duty to individual or entity X with relation to resolving the difficulties of the entire planet, except in thought alone.
Kant would approve, I think, of a specially created entity - the UN is the only candidate - collectively holding such a duty. Bring it on, but I am not holding my breath.
For ordinary mortals and nations, the proximity or neighbour principle is about as good as we can do. It is worth noting that Reform make little or no fuss about Ukrainian refugees here. And if, God forbid, France were invaded and occupied, the UK would receive six million French refugees with a welcome and a 'mustn't grumble'.
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
We have the evidence of various charities that conditions for migrants in France are intolerable.
Which makes France, in my view a failed state.
A failed state with oil. We all know this one, don’t we, children?
Yeah: but the (untapped / unexploited) oil is all in the Aquitaine Basin, and is basically centred on the Bordeaux area of France. We couldn't get to it without decimating production of claret, and that just wouldn't do.
Today is Cinco de Mayo in the US, and, to some extent, in Mexico: "More popular in the United States than in Mexico,[3] Cinco de Mayo has become associated with the celebration of Mexican-American culture.[4][5][6] Celebrations began in Columbia, California, where they have been observed annually since 1862.[7] The day gained nationwide popularity beyond those of Mexican-American heritage in the 1980s due to advertising campaigns by beer, wine, and tequila companies; today, Cinco de Mayo generates beer sales on par with the Super Bowl." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Or, as I sometimes call it, Drinko de Mayo. The Washington state police have announced that they will be looking hard for "impaired" drivers today. As they should.
Which is unfortunate, since the history behind the celebration is worth celebrating -- unless you are a fan of Napoleon III.
I get the impression that drunk-driving is more common in America than here, although driving after taking drugs is a growing problem in Britain. (And we might have given Napoleon III asylum – I'm sure one of the Napoleons lived in London for a time.)
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
It's a sorry state that there is so much both sides could do together. Israel used to allow many to cross the border to work and now can't trust/doesn't trust the population due to the zealots on both sides both within Israel and overseas.
The trouble with the Middle East has always been that zealots on either side are willing to do whatever it takes to undermine the chances of peace, from outrages to provoke the other side, up to killing their own leaders. They don't want peace, they want victory.
Today is Cinco de Mayo in the US, and, to some extent, in Mexico: "More popular in the United States than in Mexico,[3] Cinco de Mayo has become associated with the celebration of Mexican-American culture.[4][5][6] Celebrations began in Columbia, California, where they have been observed annually since 1862.[7] The day gained nationwide popularity beyond those of Mexican-American heritage in the 1980s due to advertising campaigns by beer, wine, and tequila companies; today, Cinco de Mayo generates beer sales on par with the Super Bowl." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Or, as I sometimes call it, Drinko de Mayo. The Washington state police have announced that they will be looking hard for "impaired" drivers today. As they should.
Which is unfortunate, since the history behind the celebration is worth celebrating -- unless you are a fan of Napoleon III.
I get the impression that drunk-driving is more common in America than here, although driving after taking drugs is a growing problem in Britain. (And we might have given Napoleon III asylum – I'm sure one of the Napoleons lived in London for a time.)
Drink driving is probably 100x more common in the US than the UK.
How do we feel about the racket of Chinese snooker players? Coming over here taking our money, not learning the language, humiliating the hapless locals?
Zhao Xintong has lived in Sheffield since 2016 and speaks english fine. Were it not for China's unenlightened attitude to dual citizenship, he would probably be British by now.
Today is Cinco de Mayo in the US, and, to some extent, in Mexico: "More popular in the United States than in Mexico,[3] Cinco de Mayo has become associated with the celebration of Mexican-American culture.[4][5][6] Celebrations began in Columbia, California, where they have been observed annually since 1862.[7] The day gained nationwide popularity beyond those of Mexican-American heritage in the 1980s due to advertising campaigns by beer, wine, and tequila companies; today, Cinco de Mayo generates beer sales on par with the Super Bowl." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Or, as I sometimes call it, Drinko de Mayo. The Washington state police have announced that they will be looking hard for "impaired" drivers today. As they should.
Which is unfortunate, since the history behind the celebration is worth celebrating -- unless you are a fan of Napoleon III.
I get the impression that drunk-driving is more common in America than here, although driving after taking drugs is a growing problem in Britain. (And we might have given Napoleon III asylum – I'm sure one of the Napoleons lived in London for a time.)
Charles X lived here. I happened to notice the blue plaque in Mayfair the other day.
the Shein community on Reddit is fun at the moment as the tariffs are included in the new price so that old $15 jumper is now $55 https://www.reddit.com/r/Shein/s/495qBZjq34
"How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action Even before his call for a net zero ‘reset’, there had been criticism of ex-PM’s lucrative links with fossil fuel nations Fiona Harvey, environment editor"
There isn't really any detail in there. We know that the student route is been abused, nominally attending dodgy courses at colleges that are affiliated to some universities which is very different from the standard Chinese student paying £20k+ a year in fees to attend a Russell group university. The devil is in the detail.
My wife works in a care home and many of her colleagues there were for some time "students" who would have their phone out with a lecture playing in the background while they did their job paying no attention whatsoever to the lecture, but presumably showing they were logged into it.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
Why would they get their phones out with lecture playing if they weren't listening to it and only had to be logged in? Somewhat performative, no?
Comments
They're flailing.
If they're not leaving afterwards, or the numbers increase, then that should be honestly shown.
Anyone who is doing that is not doing it for an education.
And anyone who is doing that to work a minimum wage job is not paying £20k in fees.
If they're in the country, they should be counted. That's honesty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
A bigger issue in its day was that antisemitism was still a thing, even here. Which limited generosity to Jewish refugees.
We don't like to talk about that anymore.
"More popular in the United States than in Mexico,[3] Cinco de Mayo has become associated with the celebration of Mexican-American culture.[4][5][6] Celebrations began in Columbia, California, where they have been observed annually since 1862.[7] The day gained nationwide popularity beyond those of Mexican-American heritage in the 1980s due to advertising campaigns by beer, wine, and tequila companies; today, Cinco de Mayo generates beer sales on par with the Super Bowl."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Or, as I sometimes call it, Drinko de Mayo. The Washington state police have announced that they will be looking hard for "impaired" drivers today. As they should.
Which is unfortunate, since the history behind the celebration is worth celebrating -- unless you are a fan of Napoleon III.
Which makes France, in my view a failed state.
A failed state with oil. We all know this one, don’t we, children?
“Winter is icummen in,
Lhude sing Goddamm,
Raineth drop and staineth slop
And how the wind doth ramm!
Sing: Goddamm.
Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us,
An ague hath my ham.
Freezeth river, turneth liver
Damn you, sing: Goddamm.
Goddamm, Goddamm, tis why I am,
Goddamm.
So 'gainst the winter's balm
Sing Goddamm, damm, sing Goddamm
Sing Goddamm, sing Goddamm,
DAMM.”
I am a little sceptical about "students" doing this, when it's easier to get a Social Care worker visa in the first place.
Also can cap the numbers more easily.
Universities should primarily be (a) for research and (b) educate the UK population. Some overseas students (especially at the graduate level) add leavening to the mix and so are a good thing. But universities are not businesses - but they have had to become so because of constraints on other funding
A pretty simple fix that would eliminate the vast number of abuses such as that business in Oxford that was in the news a couple of weeks ago
Whatever rules we apply to different classes of visa, we require much better enforcement. The Home Office is simply not funded or staffed to track all visa holders, audit whether they are really doing what they should (such as checks on students attendance and academic progress) and to deport overstayers.
If we want that sort of system we have to be willing to fund it.
(OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but that's the root of the issue. As a nation, there are lots of things we want- higher education, fairly early retirement, social care and so on- without paying what they cost.)
As long as there is a group of shysters prepared to say "it's easy, we can have more good things and lower taxes and all we have to do is clamp down on outcast group X", it's damn hard for anyone who believes in arithmetic to win the debate.
It’s unlikely, for example, that Fenland Poly would need to rely on dodgy visa schemes to make the numbers work
I liked Cameron’s idea of a hard cap taken directly from refugee camps.
Labour MP Jonathan Hinder has broken ranks to say his "hyper-liberal" party is ignoring voters' concerns about immigration
He’s calling for:
- A migration freeze (one in, one out)
- ECHR reform or exit
- Shutdown of asylum hotels
- A yearly refugee cap
@DominicPenna"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1919064757165838502
I don't hear any others that might.
If you're not willing to, then you can't.
But its a choice.
Reduce the size of the university sector to one that adds value to those that attend and try to break the mindset that even entry level jobs need degrees. In many cases they don’t
Those that are genuine degrees may be willing to pay for the sponsorship of a visa. Those that are not, would not.
And if its a fixed quantity, then the number is known in advance and consistent.
Coming over here taking our money, not learning the language, humiliating the hapless locals?
One or the other.
Funnily enough people are a little more reserved about taking large numbers of people from countries who have attitudes that might be anathema to ours.
There are major issues around quality, content and supervision of those courses, but the numbers are about right.
One issue is that we have a culture of going away to university rather than attending from home, so the costs are a lot higher. In many countries students atrend local universities. Its probably better social mobility as a result (though the bank of mum and dad heavily in demand for anyone studying in London), but that also denudes smaller towns of their brighter kids, leaving them left behind.
You could make an even better one that no-one should starve to death, and Britain had a duty to fund or intervene to stop that too.
We can only do what we can do and we have to choose to do it with public support.
It failed to address an alienated electorate
Wolfgang Munchau"
https://unherd.com/2025/05/the-death-of-the-centre-right/
https://x.com/fbawaydays/status/1919353025463804097?s=61
Eh, eh, eh, eh, calm down, calm down
Speaking of which, my commiserations to @OldKingCole but what a win by Somerset.
We benefit from a presumption that conquest is always wrong
Fit and heathy young men not so much
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176
It's a sorry state that there is so much both sides could do together. Israel used to allow many to cross the border to work and now can't trust/doesn't trust the population due to the zealots on both sides both within Israel and overseas.
That said, Cox getting injured again is not good at all.
*Umpires - I do not mean this quite as literally as it was at Cape Town.
One reason why Hamas were utterly insane to launch the Yom Kippur attacks is because Netanyahu was always likely to see them as an opportunity to do just this. No Gaza, no possibility of a Palestinian state. The best the West Bank could hope for is some kind of devolved settlement within Israel.
"How ‘out of touch’ Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action
Even before his call for a net zero ‘reset’, there had been criticism of ex-PM’s lucrative links with fossil fuel nations
Fiona Harvey, environment editor"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/05/tony-blair-serious-threat-climate-policy-out-of-touch
So, how sure can you really be that we would accept those fleeing a fascist regime?
Kant would approve, I think, of a specially created entity - the UN is the only candidate - collectively holding such a duty. Bring it on, but I am not holding my breath.
For ordinary mortals and nations, the proximity or neighbour principle is about as good as we can do. It is worth noting that Reform make little or no fuss about Ukrainian refugees here. And if, God forbid, France were invaded and occupied, the UK would receive six million French refugees with a welcome and a 'mustn't grumble'.
They ran a piece on the report itself when it came out. Which was literally their "first response".