I listened to a YouTube video in which John Curtice said that Reform's polling at 30-31%, combined with their evenly distributed support, would mean "certainly they would be easily the biggest party" [in Parliament] and perhaps they would have a majority.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Reform's support were absolutely evenly distributed at 30-31% in every constituency, given a four-party contest, a Reform victory would require - essentially - all four parties to be roughly in the 20-31% range. Historically, that kind of result has been pretty rare in UK elections.
And that is even without considering the scope for tactical voting. I am still convinced there would be an unprecedented level of tactical voting against Reform - even by some Conservatives, given the polling data posted here recently. I didn't hear any mention of tactical voting in the video. But perhaps I missed it.
I'm afraid Curtice is projecting historical behaviour not only incorrectly in its own terms, but well beyond its applicability in unusual circumstances.
The recent local elections give some worked examples. At 25%, Reform’s seat count matches its vote share, at 33% they clean up.
See also: the SNP's success in Westminster elections based on similar vote shares.
Up to a point. In the 2024 ge the SNP got humped on 30% while Lab cleaned up on 35%.
Well yes, but that's the same example in reverse. In a four party system, tge leading party doesn't have to be on a spectacular score to clean up.
“Ending net zero”. And replacing it with? If we want to revert to burning gas (and coal?) we’ll need to invest heavily in both generating capacity and expensive imported fuel. So a big cost offset against the alleged saving.
Ending net zero means replacing having an arbitrary target with not having an arbitrary target. It doesn’t mean forcing everyone to heat their homes with coal.
Well we're generating 71% of our power from wind and solar as I type this. Farridge thinks we can save £40bh from scrapping Net Zero. Said Net Zero is what has installed wind and solar to generate all this clan energy.
So what - specifically - are they planning to scrap to save the dosh?
Carbon capture would account for a bit of it.
But the big stuff like grid investment will save money over time, as you suggest.
If we don't invest in the grid because we're scrapping Net Zero then we're unable to transmit the power we're generating. Which means we need to generate more power elsewhere. Which means spending £lots recommissioning and adding capacity to the old gas and biomass power stations which all burn imported stuff.
Saving? What saving?
Net Zero includes adding new build CCGT capacity (with CCS) and Blue Hydrogen capacity (with CCS). All requiring natural gas for decades to come.
Progressing with these projects, while simultaneously blocking new natural gas production so that the UK is reliant on imports, is totally incoherent.
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
I’ve just come from the world’s greatest photography exhibition, a collection so profound it left me speechless for 5 minutes, and now - after an excellent riverside lunch - I’m here
“Ending net zero”. And replacing it with? If we want to revert to burning gas (and coal?) we’ll need to invest heavily in both generating capacity and expensive imported fuel. So a big cost offset against the alleged saving.
Ending net zero means replacing having an arbitrary target with not having an arbitrary target. It doesn’t mean forcing everyone to heat their homes with coal.
Well we're generating 71% of our power from wind and solar as I type this. Farridge thinks we can save £40bh from scrapping Net Zero. Said Net Zero is what has installed wind and solar to generate all this clan energy.
So what - specifically - are they planning to scrap to save the dosh?
Carbon capture would account for a bit of it.
But the big stuff like grid investment will save money over time, as you suggest.
If we don't invest in the grid because we're scrapping Net Zero then we're unable to transmit the power we're generating. Which means we need to generate more power elsewhere. Which means spending £lots recommissioning and adding capacity to the old gas and biomass power stations which all burn imported stuff.
Saving? What saving?
Net Zero includes adding new build CCGT capacity (with CCS) and Blue Hydrogen capacity (with CCS). All requiring natural gas for decades to come.
Progressing with these projects, while simultaneously blocking new natural gas production so that the UK is reliant on imports, is totally incoherent.
The UK is already reliant on imports, and the remaining UK reserves of gas are negligible.
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
They are coming here to work.
Cut off the demand.
I've explained how to do that, a number of times. On the downside, Deliveroo collapses. No, wait....
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
I've just come from Greece. The Middle East is on the doorstep. There is a high and attractive standard of living. It can't be hard to get to. And yet, no sign of immigrants at all. How do they do it?
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
I’ve just come from the world’s greatest photography exhibition, a collection so profound it left me speechless for 5 minutes, and now - after an excellent riverside lunch - I’m here
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
It's the Telegraph comments. You should see what they say about cyclists.
Recall what public opinion was of the Southport riots. British people are deeply conservative when it comes to rioting and violence.
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
It's the Telegraph comments. You should see what they say about cyclists.
Recall what public opinion was of the Southport riots. British people are deeply conservative when it comes to rioting and violence.
I’m not saying people will welcome civil disorder. Quite the opposite. That’s why I call it a “horrifying prospect” for all of us
But you can sense the building anger, on top of all these insane pro-migrant judgments - this rapist must stay so he can teach Islam to his son, that one can stay because he’ll miss masterchef
At the same time as all this, we are paying billions to house these people - even as law abiding British voters are being taxed as never before
It’s a perfect and very dark storm looming and I don’t think Labour have long to deal with it, before it will break in some horrible way
On topic, I have just been to the greatest photography exhibition of my entire life
It’s a permanent collection called “Family of Man” housed in a 12th century chateau in the little Luxembourg village of Clervaux - rebuilt after the horrors of the battle of the bulge
It was collected by a Luxembourg dude - Edward Steichen - when he was director of photography at MOMA in the 1950s-60s. Then the whole thing was gifted to Clervaux
To make it Steichner asked all the world’s best photographers and agencies to send some of their best work. He received 4 million photos. Then he and two assistants narrowed it down to 100,000. Then 10,000. Then 1,000. Then 500
The 500 are what you see in the chateau. The collection is UNESCO listed. It is absolutely magnificent - moving, profound, shocking, savage, sublime
Who knew? Who bloody knew? A little town in Luxembourg. Well I never
It's great that you found it, but I'd push back slightly - it's EXACTLY where I'd expect to find something exceptional like that, in an out of the way niche corner of a relatively wealthy, stable society.
That's why I travel when and where I do; it's not about how many countries I've been to, or putting notches on the walking stick.
It's about the small, hidden things, and some of them turn out to be of "international" stature. I don't put much more weight on a World Heritage Site, than in something smaller.
That's what I enjoyed about London when I lived there for a few years - the stuff is everywhere, but it's also everywhere outside London. Who would think that a tiny church in Kent would have a full set of stained glass by Chagall (Tudeley), but it's there.
Yes, that’s often true
(Tho I disagree on World Heritage Sites, they can disappoint but usually they are inscribed for a very good reason, and they are frequently stunning)
It’s why I like taking assignments in apparently boring or remote places. So many times I have found something outstanding - but neglected
A good example in the UK is where I was last week. Bamburgh Castle. How many Brits even know of its existence? Not many - I tested my theory last week on a couple of educated friends. Never heard of it
But all of us that have been there know it is spectacular and unforgettable
But you live in London. Many people down there are pretty hazy about anything above 52 degrees north.
Yes, everybody knows about Bamburgh Castle. The only more prominent one up there is perhaps Alnwick.
Some on the right may have blocked it out, as iirc it featured in Darren Grimes (?) sentimental journey North for his eye test (?) during Covid. Was it where he drove to see if his eyesight was good enough to be able to drive safely?
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
I've just come from Greece. The Middle East is on the doorstep. There is a high and attractive standard of living. It can't be hard to get to. And yet, no sign of immigrants at all. How do they do it?
Google the “Libyan Coastguard”
Basically, the EU pays them to patrol off Libya (and ignores them going further afield). The LC is a heavily armed militia. They capture migrant ships/boats, and imprison the migrants in Libya.
Quite often, they sell the labour of their detained migrants to local farmers. So, you have Europeans paying Arabs to capture and enslave African people. Reminds me of something….
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
The final pieces you are missing are
1) share the fine with the person reporting/giving evidence. 2) give them indefinite leave to remain, if they need it.
Suddenly, every illegally employed worker is 100% motivated to report their employer. Instead of protecting them.
Paul Hopkins @StillCompeting Isn't this just one the problems with going to war with a county of people who look just like you and speak your language?
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
It's the Telegraph comments. You should see what they say about cyclists.
Recall what public opinion was of the Southport riots. British people are deeply conservative when it comes to rioting and violence.
I’m not saying people will welcome civil disorder. Quite the opposite. That’s why I call it a “horrifying prospect” for all of us
But you can sense the building anger, on top of all these insane pro-migrant judgments - this rapist must stay so he can teach Islam to his son, that one can stay because he’ll miss masterchef
At the same time as all this, we are paying billions to house these people - even as law abiding British voters are being taxed as never before
It’s a perfect and very dark storm looming and I don’t think Labour have long to deal with it, before it will break in some horrible way
The most likely thing Labour do is to bung the French some more money, to up the interception rate from 35% to 45% again for, ooh, another 16 months or so.
I listened to a YouTube video in which John Curtice said that Reform's polling at 30-31%, combined with their evenly distributed support, would mean "certainly they would be easily the biggest party" [in Parliament] and perhaps they would have a majority.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Reform's support were absolutely evenly distributed at 30-31% in every constituency, given a four-party contest, a Reform victory would require - essentially - all four parties to be roughly in the 20-31% range. Historically, that kind of result has been pretty rare in UK elections.
And that is even without considering the scope for tactical voting. I am still convinced there would be an unprecedented level of tactical voting against Reform - even by some Conservatives, given the polling data posted here recently. I didn't hear any mention of tactical voting in the video. But perhaps I missed it.
I'm afraid Curtice is projecting historical behaviour not only incorrectly in its own terms, but well beyond its applicability in unusual circumstances.
“Ending net zero”. And replacing it with? If we want to revert to burning gas (and coal?) we’ll need to invest heavily in both generating capacity and expensive imported fuel. So a big cost offset against the alleged saving.
Ending net zero means replacing having an arbitrary target with not having an arbitrary target. It doesn’t mean forcing everyone to heat their homes with coal.
Well we're generating 71% of our power from wind and solar as I type this. Farridge thinks we can save £40bh from scrapping Net Zero. Said Net Zero is what has installed wind and solar to generate all this clan energy.
So what - specifically - are they planning to scrap to save the dosh?
Carbon capture would account for a bit of it.
But the big stuff like grid investment will save money over time, as you suggest.
If we don't invest in the grid because we're scrapping Net Zero then we're unable to transmit the power we're generating. Which means we need to generate more power elsewhere. Which means spending £lots recommissioning and adding capacity to the old gas and biomass power stations which all burn imported stuff.
Saving? What saving?
Well, yes. Reform type schtick ignore the fact that large parts of the UK's electrical infrastructure will require lots of money spent on them, irrespective of climate change. A point I've been making for a couple of decades.
The fact this point been being made for at least 20 years is more damning on previous govts than it is on Reform.
I listened to a YouTube video in which John Curtice said that Reform's polling at 30-31%, combined with their evenly distributed support, would mean "certainly they would be easily the biggest party" [in Parliament] and perhaps they would have a majority.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Reform's support were absolutely evenly distributed at 30-31% in every constituency, given a four-party contest, a Reform victory would require - essentially - all four parties to be roughly in the 20-31% range. Historically, that kind of result has been pretty rare in UK elections.
And that is even without considering the scope for tactical voting. I am still convinced there would be an unprecedented level of tactical voting against Reform - even by some Conservatives, given the polling data posted here recently. I didn't hear any mention of tactical voting in the video. But perhaps I missed it.
I'm afraid Curtice is projecting historical behaviour not only incorrectly in its own terms, but well beyond its applicability in unusual circumstances.
What the LabCon party failed to recognise is that they have broken the political economy at a fundamental level between them. Tinkering won’t fix it, a radical rethink is needed.
Reform have tapped into this albeit with reforms that won’t actually address the issues as they’re pursuing migrants as their bette noir.
That leaves space for actual radical reform to be proffered. I am hopeful that liberal radicalism can be offered as it was twice last century. Also possible for the SNP and Plaid to get smart and find a voice that attracts voters.
What I struggle with is how Reform stops itself imploding under the weight of expectation.
The question is whether Reform can keep itself from imploding until after the next general election. Until then the councils they control can blame their issues on the Labour Government (which is a win win for Reform there).
That will only last so long though.
Simon Henig, when running Durham for Labour, used to regularly blame the Tories for our woes. With partial justification, but there comes a point when people get tired of it just be8ng blame avoidance.
There will come a point when they start to have to take account.
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
Don’t worry, he will do something. We will get a speech where he says ‘he gets it’ 👍
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
You’re delusional. The anger over this is off the dial. Eg the telegraph is getting 10,000+ comments on articles about the boats. Unprecedented
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
Don’t worry, he will do something. We will get a speech where he says ‘he gets it’ 👍
I listened to a YouTube video in which John Curtice said that Reform's polling at 30-31%, combined with their evenly distributed support, would mean "certainly they would be easily the biggest party" [in Parliament] and perhaps they would have a majority.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Reform's support were absolutely evenly distributed at 30-31% in every constituency, given a four-party contest, a Reform victory would require - essentially - all four parties to be roughly in the 20-31% range. Historically, that kind of result has been pretty rare in UK elections.
And that is even without considering the scope for tactical voting. I am still convinced there would be an unprecedented level of tactical voting against Reform - even by some Conservatives, given the polling data posted here recently. I didn't hear any mention of tactical voting in the video. But perhaps I missed it.
I'm afraid Curtice is projecting historical behaviour not only incorrectly in its own terms, but well beyond its applicability in unusual circumstances.
A rogue poll is one you don't agree with.
Try reading what I wrote again?
I read it, you are just frustrated.
In a two or "two and a half" party system, you need 35-40%+ to win.
In the general melee we have at the moment, with four or four and a half, 30% is quite sufficient.
TBH I think that is populist rhetoric, and Trumpish in that they are throwing arrows at the moon:
1 - That's a bought and paid for reverse ferret. In their 2019 and 2021 manifestos they supported addressing Net Zero. Since then Reform has received several millions of £££ from fossil fuel supporters, and what happens? That should be a red flag for any potential supporters; Trump told his supporters what they wanted to hear, and has now started demolishing the rule of law and the US Constitution, whilst corruptly grifting multiple billions.
2 - That will hit their target young voters. They can only end them for new joiners without a lot of negotiation, and in fact such schemes have already been heavily restricted. For example the Civil Service, NHS and Local Govt Pension Schemes are already based on Career Average Salary.
They are already in control of some Local Authority Pension schemes; let's see what happens. To me that is a potential wedge between factions in the RefUK support base.
3 - They can't do anything there that other parties are not already doing afaik.
4 - There are already mulitple examples in County Councils where they made windy promises, and the expenditure that they promised to cut turns out not to exist. There are also some interesting reverse ferrets from both their Regional Mayors.
At this point, imo RefUK are not a serious political party. We will see !
When saying final salary schemes they mean all defined benefits schemes. This needs doing as a matter of urgency IMO but their promises are hollow because they could only do this, surely, for new joiners and money saved to the exchequer would take decades to be realised (which is a reason why it hasn't already been tackled). My opinion is that DB schemes should be scrapped for new joiners and everyone should have a higher income tax rate when aged over 65 (to capture those in receipt/ will be in receipt of high pension income).
Ending Net Zero will be a bigger vote winner than most on here realise..🤨😏
I seem to remember that when you consider how little time local government employees live after retirement it is hard to know why the local government pensions scheme costs so much. I know they buy people out as a lure to get them to retire early. I suppose a Reform Government would ban any additional payments along side salary, that would be logicalish, as much as anything they say could be logical.
I could never quite get my head around how much the management tiers of local government were getting for being pretty average at their jobs. I know there is a very closed shop in senior planners. BUT all that being said in my experience the lower rungs in local government and national parks were and presumably still are paid very poorly for the time they have to show up. Now it might be that the world would be a better place if they didn't show up at all, such as the guy who is trying to enforce against my tenant without a resolution from members.
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
Exactly.
If "STOP THE BOATS" was easily achievable it would already have been done. I know that its just "common sense" what to do when you know nothing and people are getting angry because "common sense" hasn't just been done.
But in the real world? The magic wand isn't available, and every simplistic solution is impossible.
66 per boat. This is industrial-level people smuggling.
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
They are coming here to work.
Cut off the demand.
I've explained how to do that, a number of times. On the downside, Deliveroo collapses. No, wait....
Let the sale of deliveroo complrte forst. Then collapse the business model…
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 23m Moments after promising a bunch of trade deals over the next two weeks or so, Lutnick says, "the president is just gonna determine what rates people have. If they can't get a deal done, President Trump is gonna determine what deal there is gonna be."
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
Exactly.
If "STOP THE BOATS" was easily achievable it would already have been done. I know that its just "common sense" what to do when you know nothing and people are getting angry because "common sense" hasn't just been done.
But in the real world? The magic wand isn't available, and every simplistic solution is impossible.
But the snake oil salesman says this potion cures all ills and ailments.
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
I think we are essentially humbugged by international law, and our own ethics.
The French will never stop them leaving, or allow us to patrol their shores to stop them leaving, and we are obligated to escort them as soon as they enter British waters because otherwise they will either drown or land anywhere they like in Kent, and scarper. And, as soon as they are in British waters, they can claim asylum. And there are no international waters in the Pas de Calais, because it's too narrow. So we can't do an Australia.
Turnback should be an option, but if the French won't take them, turnback to where? The only options I can think of:
(1) Escort them out past Brittany (which could take 1-2 days) and then release them in international waters with enough fuel to get to the French shore and only there. I doubt we'd have the bollocks to do it. One fatality and it would stop. (2) Make the claims inadmissible if arriving by boat. And then suspend ECHR/HRA so they can all be immediately deported - no rights, no appeals - and if they won't say where they came from do a "best guess" using HUMINT/SIGINT - everyone will know - and frogmarch them onto a flight under escort.
So when you look at it you sort of understand why Rishi was trying (2) and Rwanda so hard.
TBH I think that is populist rhetoric, and Trumpish in that they are throwing arrows at the moon:
1 - That's a bought and paid for reverse ferret. In their 2019 and 2021 manifestos they supported addressing Net Zero. Since then Reform has received several millions of £££ from fossil fuel supporters, and what happens? That should be a red flag for any potential supporters; Trump told his supporters what they wanted to hear, and has now started demolishing the rule of law and the US Constitution, whilst corruptly grifting multiple billions.
2 - That will hit their target young voters. They can only end them for new joiners without a lot of negotiation, and in fact such schemes have already been heavily restricted. For example the Civil Service, NHS and Local Govt Pension Schemes are already based on Career Average Salary.
They are already in control of some Local Authority Pension schemes; let's see what happens. To me that is a potential wedge between factions in the RefUK support base.
3 - They can't do anything there that other parties are not already doing afaik.
4 - There are already mulitple examples in County Councils where they made windy promises, and the expenditure that they promised to cut turns out not to exist. There are also some interesting reverse ferrets from both their Regional Mayors.
At this point, imo RefUK are not a serious political party. We will see !
When saying final salary schemes they mean all defined benefits schemes. This needs doing as a matter of urgency IMO but their promises are hollow because they could only do this, surely, for new joiners and money saved to the exchequer would take decades to be realised (which is a reason why it hasn't already been tackled). My opinion is that DB schemes should be scrapped for new joiners and everyone should have a higher income tax rate when aged over 65 (to capture those in receipt/ will be in receipt of high pension income).
Ending Net Zero will be a bigger vote winner than most on here realise..🤨😏
I seem to remember that when you consider how little time local government employees live after retirement it is hard to know why the local government pensions scheme costs so much. I know they buy people out as a lure to get them to retire early. I suppose a Reform Government would ban any additional payments along side salary, that would be logicalish, as much as anything they say could be logical.
I could never quite get my head around how much the management tiers of local government were getting for being pretty average at their jobs. I know there is a very closed shop in senior planners. BUT all that being said in my experience the lower rungs in local government and national parks were and presumably still are paid very poorly for the time they have to show up. Now it might be that the world would be a better place if they didn't show up at all, such as the guy who is trying to enforce against my tenant without a resolution from members.
It has been put to me that if you completely abolished national parks and gave the money directly to all the family farms in the area of the national park with very few rules beyond the 1984 Environmentally Sensitive Area rules you would do more good for nature that the bureaucracy of Natonal Parks has ever done. (Send planning back to the local authorities it was stolen from).
As a member of an NPA for 14 years, sadly I think that is probably right. Except someone would have to pay for the legacy pensions etc.
I doubt any national park would survive an existence referendum of its residents. That is really sad, but almost certainly true.
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
I think we are essentially humbugged by international law, and our own ethics.
The French will never stop them leaving, or allow us to patrol their shores to stop them leaving, and we are obligated to escort them as soon as they enter British waters because otherwise they will either drown or land anywhere they like in Kent, and scarper. And, as soon as they are in British waters, they can claim asylum. And there are no international waters in the Pas de Calais, because it's too narrow. So we can't do an Australia.
Turnback should be an option, but if the French won't take them, turnback to where? The only options I can think of:
(1) Escort them out past Brittany (which could take 1-2 days) and then release them in international waters with enough fuel to get to the French shore and only there. I doubt we'd have the bollocks to do it. One fatality and it would stop. (2) Make the claims inadmissible if arriving by boat. And then suspend ECHR/HRA so they can all be immediately deported - no rights, no appeals - and if they won't say where they came from do a "best guess" using HUMINT/SIGINT - everyone will know - and frogmarch them onto a flight under escort.
So when you look at it you sort of understand why Rishi was trying (2) and Rwanda so hard.
Another of those curious incidents of what didn't happen. Sunak went to huge political lengths to make Rwanda happen. The Rwanda (up is down) act got Royal assent on April 25. A government that was serious about using its powers would surely have got a flight off before the election.
Pay the French whatever it costs. That is the ultimate solution.
We are already paying them and they do close to nothing.
Send the money to the Libyan Coastguard. Historically, chaps from that neck of the woods were exporting people from Cornwall. Kidnapping in mid Channel should be in their wheelhouse…
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
I think we are essentially humbugged by international law, and our own ethics.
The French will never stop them leaving, or allow us to patrol their shores to stop them leaving, and we are obligated to escort them as soon as they enter British waters because otherwise they will either drown or land anywhere they like in Kent, and scarper. And, as soon as they are in British waters, they can claim asylum. And there are no international waters in the Pas de Calais, because it's too narrow. So we can't do an Australia.
Turnback should be an option, but if the French won't take them, turnback to where? The only options I can think of:
(1) Escort them out past Brittany (which could take 1-2 days) and then release them in international waters with enough fuel to get to the French shore and only there. I doubt we'd have the bollocks to do it. One fatality and it would stop. (2) Make the claims inadmissible if arriving by boat. And then suspend ECHR/HRA so they can all be immediately deported - no rights, no appeals - and if they won't say where they came from do a "best guess" using HUMINT/SIGINT - everyone will know - and frogmarch them onto a flight under escort.
So when you look at it you sort of understand why Rishi was trying (2) and Rwanda so hard.
Rwanda was always a distraction because of the significant difficulties in actually getting people through a process to get them on a plane to a Rwanda who could only take a fraction of the number needed.
France has a bigger problem with migration than we do, with more migrants staying than coming to us. A solution is needed across nations, but post-Brexit we seem to have deluded ourselves with this idea that we are the boss now and just tell the foreigners what to do.
The British government is not going to do towbacks because we aren't going to risk - or worse - drowning people.
And ECHR is not the blockage claimed by Tory politicians who know this because they did nothing about it in government. The blockage are our basic principles of law and who we are as a society.
Someone commits a crime in front of the police. Caught bang to rights. They do not go straight to jail. We have legal process, where people are innocent until proven guilty. Especially when its self-evident they will be found guilty.
What you propose is that we have no legal process under English law. That people can be rounded up off the streets and have the law bypassed. Which is a scary principle to establish because then any government can just grab people they don't like off the streets and do whatever they like.
And your rendering flights. Deporting them to somewhere. The somewhere country doesn't have a say? We just land a plane and throw people off and say "your problem?"
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
I think we are essentially humbugged by international law, and our own ethics.
The French will never stop them leaving, or allow us to patrol their shores to stop them leaving, and we are obligated to escort them as soon as they enter British waters because otherwise they will either drown or land anywhere they like in Kent, and scarper. And, as soon as they are in British waters, they can claim asylum. And there are no international waters in the Pas de Calais, because it's too narrow. So we can't do an Australia.
Turnback should be an option, but if the French won't take them, turnback to where? The only options I can think of:
(1) Escort them out past Brittany (which could take 1-2 days) and then release them in international waters with enough fuel to get to the French shore and only there. I doubt we'd have the bollocks to do it. One fatality and it would stop. (2) Make the claims inadmissible if arriving by boat. And then suspend ECHR/HRA so they can all be immediately deported - no rights, no appeals - and if they won't say where they came from do a "best guess" using HUMINT/SIGINT - everyone will know - and frogmarch them onto a flight under escort.
So when you look at it you sort of understand why Rishi was trying (2) and Rwanda so hard.
I dunno. I think you could make a big difference by (1) cutting off illegal employment (as discussed by rcs1000 numerous times), (2) resourcing and enforcing the asylum system in an efficient way, potentially with a few tweaks to eligibility as you've proposed before, (3) then deporting people with a failed asylum claim.
I would imagine ministers have been told that any serious attempt to tackle (1) will lead to an explosion of service sector inflation, and they'd rather tolerate the illegal migration.
(2) is precisely the same issue as with tracking shoplifting, etc - simply make the system work as it should, quickly, rather than with a delay of multiple years.
Reportedly the French and other European countries are less accommodating to asylum seekers than Britain, so if (3) requires a few clarifying tweaks to the ECHR to make it clear that people who've had an asylum claim rejected and have no legal basis for residence can be deported, then which country is going to disagree?
You don't have to undermine the court system, or display a reckless attitude to life by putting people at risk at sea. Just enforce the system properly.
F1: just scripting the next podcast. 10s penalty for Verstappen.
Dumb, dumb move by him. But Hulkenberg 5th!
MEanwhile, regarding the other Red Bull Seat:
Many years ago Henry Willis was asked by the Dean of St Paul's why the organ didn't sound as promised, only to get the reply, 'it's not my organ that's the problem, it's your fucking cathedral.'
Similarly, I think Lawson fans should now all yell loudly at Red Bull, 'it's not our driver that was the problem, it's your fucking car!'
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Lets play the scenario. We would then need to ensure that we catch everyone coming on these boats and then detain them securely and then process them through the home office officials and then through the courts and then send them away to a place willing to accept them.
As we know people do not want to have refugees warehoused anywhere - we can't jail them, local Tory MPs object to disused airbases, the "put them in tents" argument needs a gulag creating somewhere and nobody will want it where they are. And then we need to pay an army of officials to quickly process the paperwork and then asylum courts to formally declare them illegal and then a diplomatic agreement to rent planes to send people off.
Even if we ban people using that route it will still be expensive and a public spectacle and politically messy. Why would people still come? Because they know that some people will slip away from the authorities to work illegally as they already are doing. We could go after the employers but apparently don't want to.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
TBH I think that is populist rhetoric, and Trumpish in that they are throwing arrows at the moon:
1 - That's a bought and paid for reverse ferret. In their 2019 and 2021 manifestos they supported addressing Net Zero. Since then Reform has received several millions of £££ from fossil fuel supporters, and what happens? That should be a red flag for any potential supporters; Trump told his supporters what they wanted to hear, and has now started demolishing the rule of law and the US Constitution, whilst corruptly grifting multiple billions.
2 - That will hit their target young voters. They can only end them for new joiners without a lot of negotiation, and in fact such schemes have already been heavily restricted. For example the Civil Service, NHS and Local Govt Pension Schemes are already based on Career Average Salary.
They are already in control of some Local Authority Pension schemes; let's see what happens. To me that is a potential wedge between factions in the RefUK support base.
3 - They can't do anything there that other parties are not already doing afaik.
4 - There are already mulitple examples in County Councils where they made windy promises, and the expenditure that they promised to cut turns out not to exist. There are also some interesting reverse ferrets from both their Regional Mayors.
At this point, imo RefUK are not a serious political party. We will see !
When saying final salary schemes they mean all defined benefits schemes. This needs doing as a matter of urgency IMO but their promises are hollow because they could only do this, surely, for new joiners and money saved to the exchequer would take decades to be realised (which is a reason why it hasn't already been tackled). My opinion is that DB schemes should be scrapped for new joiners and everyone should have a higher income tax rate when aged over 65 (to capture those in receipt/ will be in receipt of high pension income).
Ending Net Zero will be a bigger vote winner than most on here realise..🤨😏
I seem to remember that when you consider how little time local government employees live after retirement it is hard to know why the local government pensions scheme costs so much. I know they buy people out as a lure to get them to retire early. I suppose a Reform Government would ban any additional payments along side salary, that would be logicalish, as much as anything they say could be logical.
I could never quite get my head around how much the management tiers of local government were getting for being pretty average at their jobs. I know there is a very closed shop in senior planners. BUT all that being said in my experience the lower rungs in local government and national parks were and presumably still are paid very poorly for the time they have to show up. Now it might be that the world would be a better place if they didn't show up at all, such as the guy who is trying to enforce against my tenant without a resolution from members.
It has been put to me that if you completely abolished national parks and gave the money directly to all the family farms in the area of the national park with very few rules beyond the 1984 Environmentally Sensitive Area rules you would do more good for nature that the bureaucracy of Natonal Parks has ever done. (Send planning back to the local authorities it was stolen from).
As a member of an NPA for 14 years, sadly I think that is probably right. Except someone would have to pay for the legacy pensions etc.
I doubt any national park would survive an existence referendum of its residents. That is really sad, but almost certainly true.
We don't create national parks for the benefit of the local residents, though -- the clue is in the name... They're supposed to consider the local social and economic interests, but not to prioritise them over the conservation aim.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
I mean simple legally in terms of domestic administration. I don’t really care about international law myself as frankly it’s entirely voluntary.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
I mean simple legally in terms of domestic administration. I don’t really care about international law myself as frankly it’s entirely voluntary.
“Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) carried out this sabotage operation, which is considered one of the most damaging losses for Russia in terms of cost and impact on its strategic nuclear forces.
According to sources, 41 Russian aircraft—including strategic bombers and military transport planes—were hit at four different bases. Part of the drones used autonomous target guidance, with results to be confirmed via satellite imagery.
An SBU agent group covertly transported 150 small attack drones and 300 munitions into Russia. Out of these, 116 drones were launched.
The drones were controlled via Russian telecommunications networks, with automated guidance systems. Several mobile launch points were established near the bases of Russia’s strategic aviation.
The drones attacked from close range during daylight hours, deep behind Russian lines. Despite the presence of layered air defenses—SAM systems, electronic warfare, and armed patrols—the Russian military was caught off-guard, having expected nighttime attacks by larger drones, not small quadcopters in broad daylight.
The most successful strike occurred at the Olenya airbase, where Tu-95 bombers were stationed. Several aircraft were completely destroyed after drones hit fully fueled tanks. Key results:
•Billions of dollars in combat equipment destroyed •Loss of strategic bombers that Russia can no longer replace •A weakened strike capability for future attacks on Ukrainian cities •Russia will now have to invest heavily in base security
Importantly, all SBU agents involved have safely returned to Ukraine, and there were no reported Ukrainian losses.This was a large-scale, high-tech operation with no known global precedent in terms of execution and effect.” https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1929176293355966580
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Lets play the scenario. We would then need to ensure that we catch everyone coming on these boats and then detain them securely and then process them through the home office officials and then through the courts and then send them away to a place willing to accept them.
As we know people do not want to have refugees warehoused anywhere - we can't jail them, local Tory MPs object to disused airbases, the "put them in tents" argument needs a gulag creating somewhere and nobody will want it where they are. And then we need to pay an army of officials to quickly process the paperwork and then asylum courts to formally declare them illegal and then a diplomatic agreement to rent planes to send people off.
Even if we ban people using that route it will still be expensive and a public spectacle and politically messy. Why would people still come? Because they know that some people will slip away from the authorities to work illegally as they already are doing. We could go after the employers but apparently don't want to.
I support going after employers I don’t really understand why we don’t - vested interests I imagine.
Ultimately an asylum court should be simple to operate if the only question the court needs to consider is “how did this person arrive in the country”. You could even make it the default assumption in absence of evidence of coming through a port or an airport.
I agree on the deportation logistics but short of machine gunning boats there isn’t really an alternative.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
I mean simple legally in terms of domestic administration. I don’t really care about international law myself as frankly it’s entirely voluntary.
Is it?
OK, so we decide to break the law in a specific and limited way. We have our planeload of asylum seekers ready to deport.
To.....?
We rely on international agreements for said plane of asylum seekers to be allowed to land and then be offloaded.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
I mean simple legally in terms of domestic administration. I don’t really care about international law myself as frankly it’s entirely voluntary.
Don’t let the attorney general hear you say that!
No matter what dross @Luckyguy1983 comes out with Parliament is still sovereign and can do whatever it likes, international treaty or no international treaty. The courts can’t and frankly won’t interfere with direct primary legislation.
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
Exactly.
If "STOP THE BOATS" was easily achievable it would already have been done. I know that its just "common sense" what to do when you know nothing and people are getting angry because "common sense" hasn't just been done.
But in the real world? The magic wand isn't available, and every simplistic solution is impossible.
You stop the boats by sinking them.
It wouldn't take many and it wouldn't take long.
And after than there would be no boats.
It could even become a nice money earner by selling licences to sink them.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Didn’t Braverman propose that?
No idea
The whole idea was incompatible with the UN convention on asylum. It would be impossible to implement without either leaving or renegotiating that treaty.
Don’t really care either way on that front. What are they going to do? To me that seems the fairest way. If you want to claim asylum you can do so through British embassies. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t complicated - if you arrive by small boat you can’t have asylum. If you go through the proper channels then maybe you can.
Just pointing out that your claim that it is “simple legally” is not entirely accurate. Our current treaty obligations say that any claim for asylum can be made regardless of how they entered the national territory.
I mean simple legally in terms of domestic administration. I don’t really care about international law myself as frankly it’s entirely voluntary.
Is it?
OK, so we decide to break the law in a specific and limited way. We have our planeload of asylum seekers ready to deport.
To.....?
We rely on international agreements for said plane of asylum seekers to be allowed to land and then be offloaded.
Tell me which international agreement relating to asylum we rely on to send people back to their own countries? I don’t know the answer but I am asking you if you know.
Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.
How?
Exactly.
If "STOP THE BOATS" was easily achievable it would already have been done. I know that its just "common sense" what to do when you know nothing and people are getting angry because "common sense" hasn't just been done.
But in the real world? The magic wand isn't available, and every simplistic solution is impossible.
You stop the boats by sinking them.
It wouldn't take many and it wouldn't take long.
And after than there would be no boats.
It could even become a nice money earner by selling licences to sink them.
I don’t think we’ve quite reached “Children Of Men” levels of depravity yet, thankfully.
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Lets play the scenario. We would then need to ensure that we catch everyone coming on these boats and then detain them securely and then process them through the home office officials and then through the courts and then send them away to a place willing to accept them.
As we know people do not want to have refugees warehoused anywhere - we can't jail them, local Tory MPs object to disused airbases, the "put them in tents" argument needs a gulag creating somewhere and nobody will want it where they are. And then we need to pay an army of officials to quickly process the paperwork and then asylum courts to formally declare them illegal and then a diplomatic agreement to rent planes to send people off.
Even if we ban people using that route it will still be expensive and a public spectacle and politically messy. Why would people still come? Because they know that some people will slip away from the authorities to work illegally as they already are doing. We could go after the employers but apparently don't want to.
I support going after employers I don’t really understand why we don’t - vested interests I imagine.
Ultimately an asylum court should be simple to operate if the only question the court needs to consider is “how did this person arrive in the country”. You could even make it the default assumption in absence of evidence of coming through a port or an airport.
I agree on the deportation logistics but short of machine gunning boats there isn’t really an alternative.
I'm disappointed in your last comment - of course there is an alternative. Its supply and demand.
Supply is plentiful. Despite our whining we take fewer asylum seekers than France does. Its not a British issue its an international issue. We need to work with our partners to find a solution for everyone. Post Brexit we seem to think we just tell the forrin what to do and wonder why they refuse.
Demand is also plentiful. We have endless employment opportunities because we don't enforce the law. So even if asylum was automatically to be refused people would still come on the assumption that there would be opportunities to disappear.
What is it about asylum that stops rational thought?
To be frank simply making it impossible to claim asylum if you arrive by boat across the channel is simple legally and morally justifiable, I think.
Lets play the scenario. We would then need to ensure that we catch everyone coming on these boats and then detain them securely and then process them through the home office officials and then through the courts and then send them away to a place willing to accept them.
As we know people do not want to have refugees warehoused anywhere - we can't jail them, local Tory MPs object to disused airbases, the "put them in tents" argument needs a gulag creating somewhere and nobody will want it where they are. And then we need to pay an army of officials to quickly process the paperwork and then asylum courts to formally declare them illegal and then a diplomatic agreement to rent planes to send people off.
Even if we ban people using that route it will still be expensive and a public spectacle and politically messy. Why would people still come? Because they know that some people will slip away from the authorities to work illegally as they already are doing. We could go after the employers but apparently don't want to.
I understand your various opinions on this but you do not seem to have a solution
As long as the boats come this will fester in the publics mind and no amount of saying we don't like foreigners is helping, not least because I do not accept that view as it is far more the direct negative effect on our NHS, housing and benefit system that is at the heart of the problem
Ultimately, and this is being discussed across the EU, parts of the EHCR will have to be reclused and deals made with countries to send anyone arriving by boat there for processing and if legitimate then they should be allowed into our country and start employment.
However, any subsequent criminal involvement instant deportation occurs
Withdraw from all and any acts which prevent us policing our own borders. Make it a crime to cross the channel illegally in any form - and certainly not a means of seeking asylum
If you did that to everyone for three months the boats would simply stop, because it would not be worth trying your luck. End of problem
Comments
Progressing with these projects, while simultaneously blocking new natural gas production so that the UK is reliant on imports, is totally incoherent.
Leonard Leo is associated with groups such as the Catholic Association and Opus Dei, so it will be interesting to see how Vance reacts.
And also to see how Trump identifies his new candidates for Judges - will they just be more TV hosts from Fox?
I don't think it will be quite as bad for Labour as some predictions on here because this crisis is so closely associated with the Conservatives.
But there is some simple signalling they could do. Do a joint proposal with the Greeks and Italians on a revision to the Refugee Convention. Massive, ridiculous fines for using illegal labour (including people who use car washes etc - make it strict liability).
I’ve just come from the world’s greatest photography exhibition, a collection so profound it left me speechless for 5 minutes, and now - after an excellent riverside lunch - I’m here
And this is day 1
Cut off the demand.
I've explained how to do that, a number of times. On the downside, Deliveroo collapses. No, wait....
And yet, no sign of immigrants at all. How do they do it?
The public is at a tipping point and if Labour don’t stop the boats very soon and completely we could see civil disorder
It’s a horrifying prospect and starmer must act
Recall what public opinion was of the Southport riots. British people are deeply conservative when it comes to rioting and violence.
But you can sense the building anger, on top of all these insane pro-migrant judgments - this rapist must stay so he can teach Islam to his son, that one can stay because he’ll miss masterchef
At the same time as all this, we are paying billions to house these people - even as law abiding British voters are being taxed as never before
It’s a perfect and very dark storm looming and I don’t think Labour have long to deal with it, before it will break in some horrible way
Some on the right may have blocked it out, as iirc it featured in Darren Grimes (?) sentimental journey North for his eye test (?) during Covid. Was it where he drove to see if his eyesight was good enough to be able to drive safely?
Ask them about Vindolanda.
Basically, the EU pays them to patrol off Libya (and ignores them going further afield). The LC is a heavily armed militia. They capture migrant ships/boats, and imprison the migrants in Libya.
Quite often, they sell the labour of their detained migrants to local farmers. So, you have Europeans paying Arabs to capture and enslave African people. Reminds me of something….
1) share the fine with the person reporting/giving evidence.
2) give them indefinite leave to remain, if they need it.
Suddenly, every illegally employed worker is 100% motivated to report their employer. Instead of protecting them.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1929145544946991106
Scorchio !
https://x.com/StillCompeting/status/1929156747127619926
Paul Hopkins @StillCompeting
Isn't this just one the problems with going to war with a county of people who look just like you and speak your language?
Who on earth comes up with these schemes, not least the sheer cruelty but also the danger of serious accidents
Maimed seagulls scattered across roads as brutal 'trend' emerges in North Wales
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/maimed-seagulls-scattered-across-roads-31756826#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
I can't recall a single article of his with which I disagree.
That's all they will do.
I’m the Daddy now.
Beachgoers on west Anglesey were left uplifted and profoundly moved when a mystery woman strode up to the water’s edge. As the sun sunk towards the horizon, she began singing a hauntingly beautiful song as if serenading the sea itself.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mystery-womans-daily-ritual-north-31758372
Simon Henig, when running Durham for Labour, used to regularly blame the Tories for our woes. With partial justification, but there comes a point when people get tired of it just be8ng blame avoidance.
There will come a point when they start to have to take account.
BREAKING: Russian strategic aviation
https://x.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1929170888986931323
My timelines would be full of ads for incontinence supplies
In a two or "two and a half" party system, you need 35-40%+ to win.
In the general melee we have at the moment, with four or four and a half, 30% is quite sufficient.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/birds/gulls
I could never quite get my head around how much the management tiers of local government were getting for being pretty average at their jobs. I know there is a very closed shop in senior planners. BUT all that being said in my experience the lower rungs in local government and national parks were and presumably still are paid very poorly for the time they have to show up. Now it might be that the world would be a better place if they didn't show up at all, such as the guy who is trying to enforce against my tenant without a resolution from members.
But in the real world? The magic wand isn't available, and every simplistic solution is impossible.
@atrupar
·
23m
Moments after promising a bunch of trade deals over the next two weeks or so, Lutnick says, "the president is just gonna determine what rates people have. If they can't get a deal done, President Trump is gonna determine what deal there is gonna be."
https://x.com/atrupar
The French will never stop them leaving, or allow us to patrol their shores to stop them leaving, and we are obligated to escort them as soon as they enter British waters because otherwise they will either drown or land anywhere they like in Kent, and scarper. And, as soon as they are in British waters, they can claim asylum. And there are no international waters in the Pas de Calais, because it's too narrow. So we can't do an Australia.
Turnback should be an option, but if the French won't take them, turnback to where? The only options I can think of:
(1) Escort them out past Brittany (which could take 1-2 days) and then release them in international waters with enough fuel to get to the French shore and only there. I doubt we'd have the bollocks to do it. One fatality and it would stop.
(2) Make the claims inadmissible if arriving by boat. And then suspend ECHR/HRA so they can all be immediately deported - no rights, no appeals - and if they won't say where they came from do a "best guess" using HUMINT/SIGINT - everyone will know - and frogmarch them onto a flight under escort.
So when you look at it you sort of understand why Rishi was trying (2) and Rwanda so hard.
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1929172865884016910
As a member of an NPA for 14 years, sadly I think that is probably right. Except someone would have to pay for the legacy pensions etc.
I doubt any national park would survive an existence referendum of its residents. That is really sad, but almost certainly true.
That’s why universal ownership of W54s is a good idea.
Fuck the FIA!
https://www.hawkeyebirdcontrol.co.uk/are-seagulls-protected/
And yet they didn't.
Dumb, dumb move by him. But Hulkenberg 5th!
France has a bigger problem with migration than we do, with more migrants staying than coming to us. A solution is needed across nations, but post-Brexit we seem to have deluded ourselves with this idea that we are the boss now and just tell the foreigners what to do.
The British government is not going to do towbacks because we aren't going to risk - or worse - drowning people.
And ECHR is not the blockage claimed by Tory politicians who know this because they did nothing about it in government. The blockage are our basic principles of law and who we are as a society.
Someone commits a crime in front of the police. Caught bang to rights. They do not go straight to jail. We have legal process, where people are innocent until proven guilty. Especially when its self-evident they will be found guilty.
What you propose is that we have no legal process under English law. That people can be rounded up off the streets and have the law bypassed. Which is a scary principle to establish because then any government can just grab people they don't like off the streets and do whatever they like.
And your rendering flights. Deporting them to somewhere. The somewhere country doesn't have a say? We just land a plane and throw people off and say "your problem?"
How does that work?
It's simplistic unworkable nonsense.
I would imagine ministers have been told that any serious attempt to tackle (1) will lead to an explosion of service sector inflation, and they'd rather tolerate the illegal migration.
(2) is precisely the same issue as with tracking shoplifting, etc - simply make the system work as it should, quickly, rather than with a delay of multiple years.
Reportedly the French and other European countries are less accommodating to asylum seekers than Britain, so if (3) requires a few clarifying tweaks to the ECHR to make it clear that people who've had an asylum claim rejected and have no legal basis for residence can be deported, then which country is going to disagree?
You don't have to undermine the court system, or display a reckless attitude to life by putting people at risk at sea. Just enforce the system properly.
Many years ago Henry Willis was asked by the Dean of St Paul's why the organ didn't sound as promised, only to get the reply, 'it's not my organ that's the problem, it's your fucking cathedral.'
Similarly, I think Lawson fans should now all yell loudly at Red Bull, 'it's not our driver that was the problem, it's your fucking car!'
Lando Norris: "I've done that before on Mario Kart"...
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1929167615940763862
As we know people do not want to have refugees warehoused anywhere - we can't jail them, local Tory MPs object to disused airbases, the "put them in tents" argument needs a gulag creating somewhere and nobody will want it where they are. And then we need to pay an army of officials to quickly process the paperwork and then asylum courts to formally declare them illegal and then a diplomatic agreement to rent planes to send people off.
Even if we ban people using that route it will still be expensive and a public spectacle and politically messy. Why would people still come? Because they know that some people will slip away from the authorities to work illegally as they already are doing. We could go after the employers but apparently don't want to.
According to sources, 41 Russian aircraft—including strategic bombers and military transport planes—were hit at four different bases. Part of the drones used autonomous target guidance, with results to be confirmed via satellite imagery.
An SBU agent group covertly transported 150 small attack drones and 300 munitions into Russia.
Out of these, 116 drones were launched.
The drones were controlled via Russian telecommunications networks, with automated guidance systems. Several mobile launch points were established near the bases of Russia’s strategic aviation.
The drones attacked from close range during daylight hours, deep behind Russian lines. Despite the presence of layered air defenses—SAM systems, electronic warfare, and armed patrols—the Russian military was caught off-guard, having expected nighttime attacks by larger drones, not small quadcopters in broad daylight.
The most successful strike occurred at the Olenya airbase, where Tu-95 bombers were stationed. Several aircraft were completely destroyed after drones hit fully fueled tanks.
Key results:
•Billions of dollars in combat equipment destroyed
•Loss of strategic bombers that Russia can no longer replace
•A weakened strike capability for future attacks on Ukrainian cities
•Russia will now have to invest heavily in base security
Importantly, all SBU agents involved have safely returned to Ukraine, and there were no reported Ukrainian losses.This was a large-scale, high-tech operation with no known global precedent in terms of execution and effect.”
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1929176293355966580
Ultimately an asylum court should be simple to operate if the only question the court needs to consider is “how did this person arrive in the country”. You could even make it the default assumption in absence of evidence of coming through a port or an airport.
I agree on the deportation logistics but short of machine gunning boats there isn’t really an alternative.
OK, so we decide to break the law in a specific and limited way. We have our planeload of asylum seekers ready to deport.
To.....?
We rely on international agreements for said plane of asylum seekers to be allowed to land and then be offloaded.
It wouldn't take many and it wouldn't take long.
And after than there would be no boats.
It could even become a nice money earner by selling licences to sink them.
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1929172659251581064
Supply is plentiful. Despite our whining we take fewer asylum seekers than France does. Its not a British issue its an international issue. We need to work with our partners to find a solution for everyone. Post Brexit we seem to think we just tell the forrin what to do and wonder why they refuse.
Demand is also plentiful. We have endless employment opportunities because we don't enforce the law. So even if asylum was automatically to be refused people would still come on the assumption that there would be opportunities to disappear.
What is it about asylum that stops rational thought?
As long as the boats come this will fester in the publics mind and no amount of saying we don't like foreigners is helping, not least because I do not accept that view as it is far more the direct negative effect on our NHS, housing and benefit system that is at the heart of the problem
Ultimately, and this is being discussed across the EU, parts of the EHCR will have to be reclused and deals made with countries to send anyone arriving by boat there for processing and if legitimate then they should be allowed into our country and start employment.
However, any subsequent criminal involvement instant deportation occurs
I doubt he’ll be pleased
Withdraw from all and any acts which prevent us policing our own borders. Make it a crime to cross the channel illegally in any form - and certainly not a means of seeking asylum
If you did that to everyone for three months the boats would simply stop, because it would not be worth trying your luck. End of problem