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.
The worst place for drink drving is Equatorial Guinea on election day. Their politicians bribe voters with booze...
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.
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.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
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.
Worth pointing out that that is because the US is utterly reliant on cars for almost all journeys, rather than because the US is drunker.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
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.
Dog Fouling is about their level.
I think algarkirk meant clearing it up.
I don't suppose clearing it up comes in their ability range. Though they might write letters c/o 10 Downing Street seeking the death penalty for non Reform voting dog foulers, and asking for the government to clear it up as their cleaning and waste disposal departments have all been sacked by DOGE (Lincs/Kent) PLC, leaving only a couple of rusting chainsaws and 400 tons of asbestos in the depot.
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.
Depends if the surrounding states will roll over. Could get v interesting otherwise.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don't think you'll get too many on the right claiming the Tory record on immigration was brilliant.
But India is not the Middle East. We rarely get Hindu terrorists blowing up our kids or murdering our soldiers or harrassing women and/or gays.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The interpretation of the dream is clear and obvious
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.
Worth pointing out that that is because the US is utterly reliant on cars for almost all journeys, rather than because the US is drunker.
No, its an attitude difference to drink-driving.
I take all my journeys by car and I have never drunk-drove. Because of an attitude that drink-driving is utterly unacceptable.
If I'm driving, I'll be the designated driver and not drink. If I'm drinking while I'm out then I'll either have a designated driver as transport home, or not go home and stay out either at someone else's home or a hotel instead.
In America there is an attitude amongst many that drink-driving is not a real crime unless done by someone under 21.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The fields fall southward, abrupt and broken, To the low last edge of the long lone land. If a step should sound or a word be spoken, Would a ghost not rise at the strange guest's hand? So long have the grey bare walks lain guestless, Through branches and briars if a man make way, He shall find no life but the sea-wind's, restless Night and day.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The interpretation of the dream is clear and obvious
I know, I know. That's why I signed off with "hello sailor".
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
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...
Sounds like a plan that might defeat Hamas and end the cycle of violence.
I don't hear any others that might.
That’s what Putin said about Ukraine.
We benefit from a presumption that conquest is always wrong
I must have missed Ukrainians invading Russia, killing thousands, kidnapping hundreds and raping many. Perhaps you can tell me when that happened, or STFU with the false comparison.
Israel is perfectly entitled to wipe out Hamas and they have every right to do so - and Gaza is stateless currently, there is no Palestinian state, it was Egyptian and Egypt abandoned it, so if Israel ends up annexing it and the Palestinians end up back in Egypt or in other Middle Eastern states then I have no qualms with that whatsoever.
Serves Hamas right for what they did. Karma's a bitch.
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.
Worth pointing out that that is because the US is utterly reliant on cars for almost all journeys, rather than because the US is drunker.
No, its an attitude difference to drink-driving.
I take all my journeys by car and I have never drunk-drove. Because of an attitude that drink-driving is utterly unacceptable.
If I'm driving, I'll be the designated driver and not drink. If I'm drinking while I'm out then I'll either have a designated driver as transport home, or not go home and stay out either at someone else's home or a hotel instead.
In America there is an attitude amongst many that drink-driving is not a real crime unless done by someone under 21.
Indeed: here in LA, Uber is ubiquitous. We're not in the boondogs. You can get an UberX in five minutes, anywhere in the city. Prices are reasonable.
But my friends - middle class people in their 40s and 50s - are very happy to go to a dinner, drink a couple of (strong) cocktails, and then the best part of a bottle of wine, and then drive home. No way are they anywhere close to the legal limit. Nor are they financially stretched.
It's just that they've always drunk and drove, and this simply doesn't bother them.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The interpretation of the dream is clear and obvious
I know, I know. That's why I signed off with "hello sailor".
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
The great irony - though - is the one person who could attract Reform-switchers back to the Conservative Party, is the one person who was responsible for the massive spike in immigration post-Brexit.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The fields fall southward, abrupt and broken, To the low last edge of the long lone land. If a step should sound or a word be spoken, Would a ghost not rise at the strange guest's hand? So long have the grey bare walks lain guestless, Through branches and briars if a man make way, He shall find no life but the sea-wind's, restless Night and day.
I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife; And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.
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.
The worst place for drink drving is Equatorial Guinea on election day. Their politicians bribe voters with booze...
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
You are but a heartless hack. I may never have voted Tory but the extinction of the Conservative Party, and it's replacement by the 17th of many more Nigel Farage vehicles, is not something I wish to see.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The fields fall southward, abrupt and broken, To the low last edge of the long lone land. If a step should sound or a word be spoken, Would a ghost not rise at the strange guest's hand? So long have the grey bare walks lain guestless, Through branches and briars if a man make way, He shall find no life but the sea-wind's, restless Night and day.
I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife; And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.
And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
it was the boriswave, or no more nhs, after brexit.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
In the long run the global answer (until governance sanity reigns throughout) should be that the rights of those who seek any sort of refuge in any country they cannot live in as of right are the same in all places everywhere, so that there is no advantage in 'destination shopping'.
In lots of places the rights of a refugee (if you are lucky - try Chad, Kenya or Uganda) are a tent in the desert, three meals a day, primary education for children, basic health care, basic protection from attack, an occasional visit from Channel 4 News. Plus travel back home as soon as they wish, or when home is safe.
This should be the universal minimum, regulated by a UN agency, funded by wealthier countries. There is a very large amount of desert to choose from.
Any country would be, of course, at liberty to offer more - much more - if they wish, to whom they wish.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
So you've interpreted that bit (incorrectly in my view) but what about the homo-erotic preamble?
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
I suspect the mood of the country IS perilously close to “sink the boats”. Remember the public is much flintier than the liberal elite. The public wants the death penalty
It would be interesting to see some new polling on this, as the crisis worsens. It would have to be done in a way that gets real opinions, not platitudes or embarrassed pieties
The only solution short of such hideous inhumane brutality is Rwanda. A version thereof. No one who arrives on a beach gets to stay in Britain. Whisk them off somewhere dismal, faraway but safe
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Of course, he got all the big calls right!
P.S. You weren't listening to the Tory to Reform switchers on Thursday. Their beef was as much with legal migration as illegal migration.
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.
Vertical envelopment, old chap.
My very elderly A level maths tutor had worked in Churchills Toy Shop. After the invasion he was sent to France to capture any interesting German stuff they could find. So often he and his units trucks were first into French villages. He’d taken the precaution of having cash on him (lol).
His wine collection was still diminishing 40 years later….
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Of course, he got all the big calls right!
P.S. You weren't listening to the Tory to Reform switchers on Thursday. Their beef was as much with legal migration as illegal migration.
Yep - towns up North are definitely a lot more ethnic than they used to be.
That to many people is way more problematic than it is for others...
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
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.
I would limit claims to those we have a particular foreign policy interest in helping - Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and non-Trumpian American academics spring to mind.
Not that there aren't hundreds of millions of others who deserve asylum. But we can only do so much.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
So you've interpreted that bit (incorrectly in my view) but what about the homo-erotic preamble?
I’m bloody good at dream interpretation, my friends and lovers seek me out for it
Comes from being obsessed with dream interpretation as a teen. I kept a dream diary. Every morning I’d try and work them out
But this dream didn’t require Carl Jung. It was and is obvious. The glorious crumbling old house by the sea. My over occupied home with boat people - sailors - in my room. It is Britain
The dream had some exquisite details: as I walked around the old house I noticed how badly it was decaying. Especially with this weird icy lacy stuff called “ghost rot” on the interior walls
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
So you've interpreted that bit (incorrectly in my view) but what about the homo-erotic preamble?
I’m bloody good at dream interpretation, my friends and lovers seek me out for it
Comes from being obsessed with dream interpretation as a teen. I kept a dream diary. Every morning I’d try and work them out
But this dream didn’t require Carl Jung. It was and is obvious. The glorious crumbling old house by the sea. My over occupied home with boat people - sailors - in my room. It is Britain
The dream had some exquisite details: as I walked around the old house I noticed how badly it was decaying. Especially with this weird icy lacy stuff called “ghost rot” on the interior walls
GHOST ROT
I didn't realise ChatGPT has any need to seek out the thoughts of a travel writer on interpreting dreams.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Dreaming of sailors? I hope you have your therapist on speed dial. One of your better left field posts.
"Hello sailor!"
The interpretation of the dream is clear and obvious
'A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel! O wise young judge'
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
I suspect the mood of the country IS perilously close to “sink the boats”. Remember the public is much flintier than the liberal elite. The public wants the death penalty
It would be interesting to see some new polling on this, as the crisis worsens. It would have to be done in a way that gets real opinions, not platitudes or embarrassed pieties
The only solution short of such hideous inhumane brutality is Rwanda. A version thereof. No one who arrives on a beach gets to stay in Britain. Whisk them off somewhere dismal, faraway but safe
I think you're right with 'close' - hence my 'yet'.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
it was the boriswave, or no more nhs, after brexit.
NHS workers are a small minority of those who have arrived here in the last five years.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
it was the boriswave, or no more nhs, after brexit.
NHS workers are a small minority of those who have arrived here in the last five years.
And Europeans a small part of the NHS. Even being generous and counting Ireland, it's about 5% of nurses and about 5% of doctors. About 80% of all foreign nurses and doctors are from outside the EU.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
it was the boriswave, or no more nhs, after brexit.
NHS workers are a small minority of those who have arrived here in the last five years.
And Europeans a small part of the NHS. Even being generous and counting Ireland, it's about 5% of nurses and about 5% of doctors. About 80% of all foreign nurses and doctors are from outside the EU.
Indeed, 5.2%.
Anyone claiming that Brexit had anything to do with the NHS or its demands doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Zero isn’t practical . On top of that no one seems to want to address the pensioner to worker ratio . Immigrants who work and pay taxes then retire to their homeland is what the Treasury would like to see.
The boats are very emotive and this is bleeding into the overall immigration debate . The public when you poll them understand the need for immigration in certain sectors , and students given their big plus for the economy aren’t the issue .
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Of course, he got all the big calls right!
P.S. You weren't listening to the Tory to Reform switchers on Thursday. Their beef was as much with legal migration as illegal migration.
Hm. I give you purely hyoothetical voter Steve, who is sick of immigration, and tells people so. Except he doesn't object to harbouring Ukrainians. And the Hong Kongers seem to integrate well. And the Indian doctor he saw at the hospital - he's fine, obviously. Along with the Guyanese nurse. He has no objection to Americans or Australians. He is suspicious of students, but can't pin his finger on why. He dislikes Romanian gangs driving down unskilled wages, but didn't that stop with Brexit? Apart from all that, of course, he doesn't want any legal immigration. I contend that what Steve says about legal immigration is largely driven to his emotional reaction to boat people. I'm not dismissing his views, but I think his emotional reaction to e.g. students or skilled workers is much less severe. He's still going to have views, but they won't be smash-the-system views.
Of course, while immigration is the main cause of Reform, it isn't the only cause, and stopping the boats is a necessary but not sufficient factor in preventing a Reform government.
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.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Well we won’t know until we try it. And mine is the only humane solution that could stop the boats entirely - meaning we DO save billions
But it will take a government with backbone. Not the Tories, obvs. It needs a government willing to leave the ECHR, negate much asylum “law”, and sweep away an entire class of activist lawyers and judges
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
Ah we follow the lead of Lucy Powell - dog whistle racism - the card the left always play to shut down discussion. Boring!
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
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.
Was he Malcolm's brother?
No, he runs a school for gifted youngsters at 1407 Graymalkin Lane, North Salem, Westchester County, New York
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
Ah we follow the lead of Lucy Powell - dog whistle racism - the card the left always play to shut down discussion. Boring!
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
Why do you think they're a guaranteed fiscal drag?
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
The boat people may not be white but what about the white professionals from the us, aus, Canada, South Africa etc?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
Albanians probably count.
The fact that Vietnamese and even Indians were using it to get in just shows you how totally f-ked up it is.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
So it's only the brown ones that they object to...I see.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
Ah we follow the lead of Lucy Powell - dog whistle racism - the card the left always play to shut down discussion. Boring!
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Well we won’t know until we try it. And mine is the only humane solution that could stop the boats entirely - meaning we DO save billions
But it will take a government with backbone. Not the Tories, obvs. It needs a government willing to leave the ECHR, negate much asylum “law”, and sweep away an entire class of activist lawyers and judges
Even if we left the ECHR the intention is to replace it with a “British Bill of Rights” or some other such thing. Accordingly the courts would still have jurisdiction and lawyers will still interfere. You cannot sweep away “activist lawyers and judges” easily without depriving British people generally of their rights because fundamentally there needs to be protection against the Government picking people up off the street and shipping them off to Rwanda.
Ultimately your utopia doesn’t easily work unless we become Putin’s Russia. You would have to invest heavily in the legal system to quickly process people while retaining the British common law rights that people like @Luckyguy1983 fetishise.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
Ah we follow the lead of Lucy Powell - dog whistle racism - the card the left always play to shut down discussion. Boring!
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
The boat people may not be white but what about the white professionals from the us, aus, Canada, South Africa etc?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Some eu countries already take that option, the greeks for example, shooting boats up I mean
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Some eu countries already take that option, the greeks for example, shooting boats up I mean
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
You have to wonder just who was "speaking up" in Cabinet when Boris proposed this.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
I suspect the mood of the country IS perilously close to “sink the boats”. Remember the public is much flintier than the liberal elite. The public wants the death penalty
It would be interesting to see some new polling on this, as the crisis worsens. It would have to be done in a way that gets real opinions, not platitudes or embarrassed pieties
The only solution short of such hideous inhumane brutality is Rwanda. A version thereof. No one who arrives on a beach gets to stay in Britain. Whisk them off somewhere dismal, faraway but safe
That isn't necessary. Deportation to country of origin or country of "nearest fit" - we pick - will do, if they want to play the lost papers game.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
So you've interpreted that bit (incorrectly in my view) but what about the homo-erotic preamble?
I’m bloody good at dream interpretation, my friends and lovers seek me out for it
Comes from being obsessed with dream interpretation as a teen. I kept a dream diary. Every morning I’d try and work them out
But this dream didn’t require Carl Jung. It was and is obvious. The glorious crumbling old house by the sea. My over occupied home with boat people - sailors - in my room. It is Britain
The dream had some exquisite details: as I walked around the old house I noticed how badly it was decaying. Especially with this weird icy lacy stuff called “ghost rot” on the interior walls
GHOST ROT
It's not entirely dissimilar to a dream outlined by Jung in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, where Jung recounts a dream he had sometime around 1913, where the land from the Alps to - I think it's the North Sea - ends up flooded with blood. Good quality dream you had there.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
it was the boriswave, or no more nhs, after brexit.
The Boriswave was a million people a year. How many NHS jobs are there?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
Why do you think they're a guaranteed fiscal drag?
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
Data from Denmark Sweden Holland etc show that non European non East Asian migrants are a net fiscal drag
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Of course, he got all the big calls right!
P.S. You weren't listening to the Tory to Reform switchers on Thursday. Their beef was as much with legal migration as illegal migration.
Hm. I give you purely hyoothetical voter Steve, who is sick of immigration, and tells people so. Except he doesn't object to harbouring Ukrainians. And the Hong Kongers seem to integrate well. And the Indian doctor he saw at the hospital - he's fine, obviously. Along with the Guyanese nurse. He has no objection to Americans or Australians. He is suspicious of students, but can't pin his finger on why. He dislikes Romanian gangs driving down unskilled wages, but didn't that stop with Brexit? Apart from all that, of course, he doesn't want any legal immigration. I contend that what Steve says about legal immigration is largely driven to his emotional reaction to boat people. I'm not dismissing his views, but I think his emotional reaction to e.g. students or skilled workers is much less severe. He's still going to have views, but they won't be smash-the-system views.
Of course, while immigration is the main cause of Reform, it isn't the only cause, and stopping the boats is a necessary but not sufficient factor in preventing a Reform government.
The point you make there is that immigration, if controlled and in reasonable numbers, of those who respect the country and our way of life, can command political support.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Rwanda was not ‘shouted down’. It was an unworkable scheme that never worked.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
Rwanda was not ‘shouted down’. It was an unworkable scheme that never worked.
It was frustrated by lawfare. And then scrapped.
There was a spike in asylum claims in Eire before GE2024 because of it.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
Feel free to dispute my calm, measured, and to be honest non-judgemental points. That is what this forum is for at the end of the day. Just because I might be liberal that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong about some of the potential problems in implementing new asylum policies.
Feel free to dispute my calm, measured, and to be honest non-judgemental points. That is what this forum is for at the end of the day. Just because I might be liberal that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong about some of the potential problems in implementing new asylum policies.
No. Because you're dogmatic and not open to persuasion, so the debate goes nowhere. I'm under no obligation to engage when it's clear it's just a waste of time.
You say your points are calm and non-judgmental, but tone alone doesn't make a discussion productive - and that's if we judicially ignore that you thought Leon might seriously be proposing machine gunning boats. It's not about you being liberal or conservative—it's about whether you're actually willing to consider other perspectives. If you're not, then this isn't a conversation; it's preaching.
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.
Your boy Johnson was very keen on importing labour ("our friends") from the Indian subcontinent. And don't forget he got all the "big calls right".
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I don’t know about @Casino_Royale but I think most right wingers now entirely accept that Boris and the Tories made a tragic, unforgivable “mistake” with the Boriswave. And “mistake” is being generous
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
You have to wonder just who was "speaking up" in Cabinet when Boris proposed this.
I expect very few.
I suppose they thought that their supporters had “nowhere else to go.”
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
I dreamt I was eating a marshmallow.
I woke up and my pillow had gone, for goodness sake.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
Feel free to dispute my calm, measured, and to be honest non-judgemental points. That is what this forum is for at the end of the day. Just because I might be liberal that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong about some of the potential problems in implementing new asylum policies.
No. Because you're dogmatic and not open to persuasion, so the debate goes nowhere. I'm under no obligation to engage when it's clear it's just a waste of time.
You say your points are calm and non-judgmental, but tone alone doesn't make a discussion productive - and that's if we judicially ignore that you thought Leon might seriously be proposing machine gunning boats. It's not about you being liberal or conservative—it's about whether you're actually willing to consider other perspectives. If you're not, then this isn't a conversation; it's preaching.
Oh get a grip man. I am just asking difficult questions. You have no obligation to engage but it doesn’t exactly persuade me, or anyone else, to your argument or position. You call me dogmatic but I am really not. I accept we need to do something, I just don’t think there are easy answers.
To be honest @Casino_Royale you’re in one of your “lord it over the Liberals” arrogant moods where you think everyone else who thinks differently is stupid and dense.
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.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
Comments
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kemi-badenoch-conservative-leader-tories-b2745085.html
What the silly sods do not realise is that they are too early, not late. Do Conservative MPs know nothing about politics?
Betting note: unless Kemi resigns, she is safe for most of this year so do not plunge on a 2025 exit unless you know something.
https://www.pictorialmeadows.co.uk/pages/rotherham-borough-council?srsltid=AfmBOoo6ZsDnIc6RCPcSO1Udq7zIkIimdaftDnKZQAfnNDWRX6DOqlON
Why was he right and the narrative since July is Starmer/ Labour have lost control of immigration?
I just did
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
"Hello sailor!"
But India is not the Middle East. We rarely get Hindu terrorists blowing up our kids or murdering our soldiers or harrassing women and/or gays.
I take all my journeys by car and I have never drunk-drove. Because of an attitude that drink-driving is utterly unacceptable.
If I'm driving, I'll be the designated driver and not drink. If I'm drinking while I'm out then I'll either have a designated driver as transport home, or not go home and stay out either at someone else's home or a hotel instead.
In America there is an attitude amongst many that drink-driving is not a real crime unless done by someone under 21.
To the low last edge of the long lone land.
If a step should sound or a word be spoken,
Would a ghost not rise at the strange guest's hand?
So long have the grey bare walks lain guestless,
Through branches and briars if a man make way,
He shall find no life but the sea-wind's, restless
Night and day.
It’s an error so bad they may never be forgiven. They deserve to die out, now. And quite possibly they will - and good riddance. I shan’t weep. It’s just a political party
Israel is perfectly entitled to wipe out Hamas and they have every right to do so - and Gaza is stateless currently, there is no Palestinian state, it was Egyptian and Egypt abandoned it, so if Israel ends up annexing it and the Palestinians end up back in Egypt or in other Middle Eastern states then I have no qualms with that whatsoever.
Serves Hamas right for what they did. Karma's a bitch.
But my friends - middle class people in their 40s and 50s - are very happy to go to a dinner, drink a couple of (strong) cocktails, and then the best part of a bottle of wine, and then drive home. No way are they anywhere close to the legal limit. Nor are they financially stretched.
It's just that they've always drunk and drove, and this simply doesn't bother them.
I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
In lots of places the rights of a refugee (if you are lucky - try Chad, Kenya or Uganda) are a tent in the desert, three meals a day, primary education for children, basic health care, basic protection from attack, an occasional visit from Channel 4 News. Plus travel back home as soon as they wish, or when home is safe.
This should be the universal minimum, regulated by a UN agency, funded by wealthier countries. There is a very large amount of desert to choose from.
Any country would be, of course, at liberty to offer more - much more - if they wish, to whom they wish.
It would be interesting to see some new polling on this, as the crisis worsens. It would have to be done in a way that gets real opinions, not platitudes or embarrassed pieties
The only solution short of such hideous inhumane brutality is Rwanda. A version thereof. No one who arrives on a beach gets to stay in Britain. Whisk them off somewhere dismal, faraway but safe
But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
P.S. You weren't listening to the Tory to Reform switchers on Thursday. Their beef was as much with legal migration as illegal migration.
My very elderly A level maths tutor had worked in Churchills Toy Shop. After the invasion he was sent to France to capture any interesting German stuff they could find. So often he and his units trucks were first into French villages. He’d taken the precaution of having cash on him (lol).
His wine collection was still diminishing 40 years later….
That to many people is way more problematic than it is for others...
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Not that there aren't hundreds of millions of others who deserve asylum. But we can only do so much.
Comes from being obsessed with dream interpretation as a teen. I kept a dream diary. Every morning I’d try and work them out
But this dream didn’t require Carl Jung. It was and is obvious. The glorious crumbling old house by the sea. My over occupied home with boat people - sailors - in my room. It is Britain
The dream had some exquisite details: as I walked around the old house I noticed how badly it was decaying. Especially with this weird icy lacy stuff called “ghost rot” on the interior walls
GHOST ROT
Anyone claiming that Brexit had anything to do with the NHS or its demands doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
The boats are very emotive and this is bleeding into the overall immigration debate . The public when you poll them understand the need for immigration in certain sectors , and students given their big plus for the economy aren’t the issue .
Apart from all that, of course, he doesn't want any legal immigration.
I contend that what Steve says about legal immigration is largely driven to his emotional reaction to boat people. I'm not dismissing his views, but I think his emotional reaction to e.g. students or skilled workers is much less severe. He's still going to have views, but they won't be smash-the-system views.
Of course, while immigration is the main cause of Reform, it isn't the only cause, and stopping the boats is a necessary but not sufficient factor in preventing a Reform government.
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
But it will take a government with backbone. Not the Tories, obvs. It needs a government willing to leave the ECHR, negate much asylum “law”, and sweep away an entire class of activist lawyers and judges
Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
The fact that Vietnamese and even Indians were using it to get in just shows you how totally f-ked up it is.
He's not my boy.
Ultimately your utopia doesn’t easily work unless we become Putin’s Russia. You would have to invest heavily in the legal system to quickly process people while retaining the British common law rights that people like @Luckyguy1983 fetishise.
I expect very few.
Then, they will stop.
If not, it doesn't.
There was a spike in asylum claims in Eire before GE2024 because of it.
They weren't going there for the Guinness.
And, where are the intelligent ones? @Gardenwalker @maxh and @LostPassword ?
Sadly missed.
You say your points are calm and non-judgmental, but tone alone doesn't make a discussion productive - and that's if we judicially ignore that you thought Leon might seriously be proposing machine gunning boats. It's not about you being liberal or conservative—it's about whether you're actually willing to consider other perspectives. If you're not, then this isn't a conversation; it's preaching.
So, here we are.
I woke up and my pillow had gone, for goodness sake.
Surprisingly no mention of Churchill’s Islamophobia on the BBC..