Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Reform’s leads falls by 5% if you exclude non-voters – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,231

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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.
    You know when you go to the airport and you don't have a ticket? Or a passport? Or a visa where needed? You aren't allowed to board because you won't be allowed to disembark.

    I can't tell you what the specific agreements are but its self-evident that sovereign nations do not allow other sovereign nations to just dump people in their territory without due process.

    What do you envisage? We stick a load of people from random nations onto a plane and fly them to France? And they are allowed to land and throw people off the plane with no paperwork or process?
    Build a huge concentration camp for them in east Falkland. Safe but basic and cold and bleak

    As soon as these migrants realise they really ain’t getting into Britain the boats will stop immediately

    You just need to punish the first few thousand and deterrence will take care of the rest for eternity

    No one bothers to try and get to Australia any more because they know they can’t get in
    West Falkland. Almost no one lives there.
    Sorry yes west. Failing that, the South Sandwich Islands. Just do it

    The prospect of going to the sub Antarctic for several years would - I suggest - stop all the boats in about a week
    Seems to me that the flaw, or at least a flaw, in all these 'let's just ship them to a remote island or Rwanda', is that the people on the small boats will then seek to evade being helped across by the coast guard or picked up by RNLI etc. They will try and get across unaided and head for a random beach on the south coast and then run, probably never to be found again.

    So, for example, we will see night crossings.

    The south coast is very densely populated. There is nowhere to land unseen. This is preposterously feeble

    We can catch them. We just lack the will and the spine, at the moment

    You could have drones up 24/7 monitoring the entire south coast and robots checking the screens. This really is not hard

    Expensive? Maybe. Not as expensive as £5bn a year and rising very fast
    ok. So now we are saying we need to send them to the Falklands and also have the beaches of the south coast all patrolled at all time with people and/or drones.

    The boats will head to another english coast and most wont make it would be my guess.
    Then that’s their choice. We can police those coasts too. And again pack them off to goose green
    I don't really see the point of having them on an island. The beauty of Rwanda was that they'd all have absconded as soon as they'd got there. They can't do that on an Island.
    Indeed, that's why the Rwandans would have happily taken everyone we wanted to send, because they have little expectation anyone we send would actually want to stay there.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,500
    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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.
    You know when you go to the airport and you don't have a ticket? Or a passport? Or a visa where needed? You aren't allowed to board because you won't be allowed to disembark.

    I can't tell you what the specific agreements are but its self-evident that sovereign nations do not allow other sovereign nations to just dump people in their territory without due process.

    What do you envisage? We stick a load of people from random nations onto a plane and fly them to France? And they are allowed to land and throw people off the plane with no paperwork or process?
    Build a huge concentration camp for them in east Falkland. Safe but basic and cold and bleak

    As soon as these migrants realise they really ain’t getting into Britain the boats will stop immediately

    You just need to punish the first few thousand and deterrence will take care of the rest for eternity

    No one bothers to try and get to Australia any more because they know they can’t get in
    It seems to me that the area to examine is that of the rights of any and all asylum seekers. There should, sadly, be no gain from venue shopping. The rights of all asylum seekers should be the same the free world over, and, again sadly, this should be more or less the rights accorded to refugees in, for example, Chad or Bangladesh. There are millions of these. That too is sad.

    Under international agreement this should amount to: a tent, three meals a day, primary education for children, basic health care, basic protection from violence under UN authority, a ticket home as and when practicable.

    And obviously any country can offer more than this to any or all that they wish.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Well done Ukraine. Now send your drones to Moscow and St.Petersburg. Particularly St. Petersburg. I hope they have the address of Putin’s birthplace.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    More data

    The government says it costs £41,000 to house and feed one asylum seeker for one year


    So the 1200 arrivals yesterday - just one day’s worth - one single day - will cost the rest of us £50 million for one year. And remember we are already spending £5 billion and this is rising. And the numbers are growing

    We don’t have any choice but to find a radical solution which stops this, or we go bankrupt - or the nation erupts into civil strife as voters refuse to foot the bill and suffer the social decay

    Roughly equivalent to prison costs, which makes sense. It would be a lot more than that per refugee on West Falkland, though if it works as a deterrent...

    It would be an expensive gamble.
    Allow them in, as long as they work in care homes, the NHS, or the Home Office. The Home Office seems particularly short staffed.
    Offer them jobs in Scotland and call the Scottish Government’s bluff.
    Yes. Brilliant idea. “Anyone who makes it across the channel immediately gets the right to work”. That will stop anyone else from trying

    A large minority of lefties seem mentally incapable of grasping this issue. And quite a few of them are now in government

    You can’t let them work. You can’t put them in hotels. You can’t allow 90% of claims. You can’t allow boats to land as they damn well like. Basically we can’t allow the asylum system as we have known it

    We have to stop the boats ASAFP and the only humane way of doing that is deterrence; and then we have to begin the difficult process of deporting many of those already here

    There is no solution to this problem which is pain free and which won’t offend liberal sensibilities in some form. But so it is
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,500

    a

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    18 boats carrying 1,194 illegal migrants crossed yesterday.

    That’s the highest daily figure this year.

    Where are all the women and children?


    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1929131768008827188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Over 1000 in a day is absolutely toxic for starmer. He has so clearly NOT “smashed the gangs”. And he cancelled the one idea anyone had for stopping them humanely, even if it was absurd and expensive and extreme - it might still have worked

    And, besides, what have Labour tried since? Offshore processing hubs - like Rwanda. Except unlike the Tories starmer couldn’t even get the agreement of the host country - in his case Albania, which humiliatingly turned him down live, on air

    Can Starmer’s and Labour’s polling go lower?

    Yes
    It surprised me that people criticised details of the Rwanda scheme as impractical etc, when I thought it was a deterrent rather than a practical solution. So we’d only have to send a few dozen there and potential illegal immigrants would think better of crossing the channel. A system we’d barely have to use, but knowing it was there would do the job
    Yes of course. It was a deterrent. And it might well have worked AS A DETERRENT

    Which is why Labour - having criticised Rwanda for being heartless and useless for years - are now desperately seeking to do versions of their own. Like Albania
    Nah Rwanda was shite. It was more tinkering. A holding prison on the Falklands is a more plausible option provided that people have an option to voluntarily return home, in my view. Not sure whether the Falklands will want such a prison on their island though.
    The Falklanders will have no choice. They entirely rely on the uk to stop them being Argentinian. Mainland Brits died to defend that right of theirs

    So they owe the mother country, big time

    Also

    1. Falklanders are now seriously rich (fishing licenses). They will cope

    2. No one lives on west Falkland - as @Sean_F notes. We wouldn’t be dispossessing anyone (and if we end up doing that, it will be a few bleak sheep farms, so whatever - compensate them)

    Yes it will be expensive and difficult initially. But right now we are spending FIVE BILLION A YEAR hosting these people and the bill is only rising, fast

    And again the point is: we wouldn’t have to do it for long. Because the deterrent effect would be immediate and massive and the boats would stop very quick
    Having visited the Falklands it would be ideal, not least after a couple of well publiised flights the boats would stop
    Why not South Georgia? No locals at all.
    Shackleton was the original boat person to make it to South Georgia seeking help. If you don't know the story, it's one you couldn't make up because it's just impossible. Reading it up freezes the blood.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,231
    Joe Root is the GOAT.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,833

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    algarkirk said:

    a

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    18 boats carrying 1,194 illegal migrants crossed yesterday.

    That’s the highest daily figure this year.

    Where are all the women and children?


    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1929131768008827188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Over 1000 in a day is absolutely toxic for starmer. He has so clearly NOT “smashed the gangs”. And he cancelled the one idea anyone had for stopping them humanely, even if it was absurd and expensive and extreme - it might still have worked

    And, besides, what have Labour tried since? Offshore processing hubs - like Rwanda. Except unlike the Tories starmer couldn’t even get the agreement of the host country - in his case Albania, which humiliatingly turned him down live, on air

    Can Starmer’s and Labour’s polling go lower?

    Yes
    It surprised me that people criticised details of the Rwanda scheme as impractical etc, when I thought it was a deterrent rather than a practical solution. So we’d only have to send a few dozen there and potential illegal immigrants would think better of crossing the channel. A system we’d barely have to use, but knowing it was there would do the job
    Yes of course. It was a deterrent. And it might well have worked AS A DETERRENT

    Which is why Labour - having criticised Rwanda for being heartless and useless for years - are now desperately seeking to do versions of their own. Like Albania
    Nah Rwanda was shite. It was more tinkering. A holding prison on the Falklands is a more plausible option provided that people have an option to voluntarily return home, in my view. Not sure whether the Falklands will want such a prison on their island though.
    The Falklanders will have no choice. They entirely rely on the uk to stop them being Argentinian. Mainland Brits died to defend that right of theirs

    So they owe the mother country, big time

    Also

    1. Falklanders are now seriously rich (fishing licenses). They will cope

    2. No one lives on west Falkland - as @Sean_F notes. We wouldn’t be dispossessing anyone (and if we end up doing that, it will be a few bleak sheep farms, so whatever - compensate them)

    Yes it will be expensive and difficult initially. But right now we are spending FIVE BILLION A YEAR hosting these people and the bill is only rising, fast

    And again the point is: we wouldn’t have to do it for long. Because the deterrent effect would be immediate and massive and the boats would stop very quick
    Having visited the Falklands it would be ideal, not least after a couple of well publiised flights the boats would stop
    Why not South Georgia? No locals at all.
    Shackleton was the original boat person to make it to South Georgia seeking help. If you don't know the story, it's one you couldn't make up because it's just impossible. Reading it up freezes the blood.
    We sailed it on our 'in Shackleton's footsteps' Antarctica expedition and visited his grave

    It is quite an extraordinary feet of survival not least due to the cold and heavy seas
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    Then Labour will deserve the electoral extermination coming their way, and you’d better prepare for a hard or even far right government
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,595

    Well done Ukraine. Now send your drones to Moscow and St.Petersburg. Particularly St. Petersburg. I hope they have the address of Putin’s birthplace.

    ... approximately 71 years too late.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,665
    Early evening all :)

    Immigration is just a numbers game - 1200 in one day, 40,000 in a year and the costs, well, who knows? Is it £5 billion really?

    Nobody knows how many people are living illegally in this country - I've seen figures from 400,000 to 1.2 million. Based on a per head provision of £10k per person for services, you come out between £4 billion and perhaps £15 billion.

    On top of that, we have several thousand UK-born children wh,ose parents are here illegally.

    Even that old softy Nigel Farage has conceded the prospect of deporting illegal migrants en masse just isn't feasible.

    Listening to the arguments concerning the migrants arriving on the boats, I'm struck by the analogies to nuclear deterrence which has been to spend vast amounts of money on weapons which we hope and pray will never be used.

    We could spend tens of millions on camps in West Falkland, Ascension or wherever and end up with no takers (assuming the deterrent effect of immediate off-shore processing has the desired effect) but perhaps that's what we have to do to ensure we "take control" (so to speak) of immigration. Should we go further and actually have an immigration tax - 1p on basic rate - to fund illegal migrant off-shore processing centres?

    The debate is unfortunately slipping beyond reason and logic into emotion and symbolism. Facts are being swamped (poor choice of word) by perceptions and it's frightening how little we know of the size and scale of illegal immigration,
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879
    algarkirk said:

    a

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    18 boats carrying 1,194 illegal migrants crossed yesterday.

    That’s the highest daily figure this year.

    Where are all the women and children?


    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1929131768008827188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Over 1000 in a day is absolutely toxic for starmer. He has so clearly NOT “smashed the gangs”. And he cancelled the one idea anyone had for stopping them humanely, even if it was absurd and expensive and extreme - it might still have worked

    And, besides, what have Labour tried since? Offshore processing hubs - like Rwanda. Except unlike the Tories starmer couldn’t even get the agreement of the host country - in his case Albania, which humiliatingly turned him down live, on air

    Can Starmer’s and Labour’s polling go lower?

    Yes
    It surprised me that people criticised details of the Rwanda scheme as impractical etc, when I thought it was a deterrent rather than a practical solution. So we’d only have to send a few dozen there and potential illegal immigrants would think better of crossing the channel. A system we’d barely have to use, but knowing it was there would do the job
    Yes of course. It was a deterrent. And it might well have worked AS A DETERRENT

    Which is why Labour - having criticised Rwanda for being heartless and useless for years - are now desperately seeking to do versions of their own. Like Albania
    Nah Rwanda was shite. It was more tinkering. A holding prison on the Falklands is a more plausible option provided that people have an option to voluntarily return home, in my view. Not sure whether the Falklands will want such a prison on their island though.
    The Falklanders will have no choice. They entirely rely on the uk to stop them being Argentinian. Mainland Brits died to defend that right of theirs

    So they owe the mother country, big time

    Also

    1. Falklanders are now seriously rich (fishing licenses). They will cope

    2. No one lives on west Falkland - as @Sean_F notes. We wouldn’t be dispossessing anyone (and if we end up doing that, it will be a few bleak sheep farms, so whatever - compensate them)

    Yes it will be expensive and difficult initially. But right now we are spending FIVE BILLION A YEAR hosting these people and the bill is only rising, fast

    And again the point is: we wouldn’t have to do it for long. Because the deterrent effect would be immediate and massive and the boats would stop very quick
    Having visited the Falklands it would be ideal, not least after a couple of well publiised flights the boats would stop
    Why not South Georgia? No locals at all.
    Shackleton was the original boat person to make it to South Georgia seeking help. If you don't know the story, it's one you couldn't make up because it's just impossible. Reading it up freezes the blood.
    “Right, chaps, we are going to row from Antarctica to South Georgia.”

    “OK boss”

    “In winter”

    “OK boss”

    “In a dingy”

    “OK boss”

    “Fixed seat, arms only, rowing”

    “WTF?”
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,516
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    I do think it is possible but not by Starmer
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Omg Switzerland is INSANE

    You can pay £50 for an ok pizza
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    Then Labour will deserve the electoral extermination coming their way, and you’d better prepare for a hard or even far right government
    And they won't stop the boats either unless they come up with some ideas which are actually workable.

    Pretty much everyone agrees that boat crossings are bad. So it would be better if sane people worked cross party on it so that we avoid the "just shoot them" approach that someone posted on here earlier.

    We also need to face down how our economy works without migrants. We can train people up but it will take time and resources. We need builders and medics and care workers and hospitality staff and farm labour. Very happy to work on how we resource up Brits to fill these roles, but "just stop the migrants now" creates a problem that can't just be wished away.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,665
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Omg Switzerland is INSANE

    You can pay £50 for an ok pizza
    Worse than Norway? No way....
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Fishing said:

    Well done Ukraine. Now send your drones to Moscow and St.Petersburg. Particularly St. Petersburg. I hope they have the address of Putin’s birthplace.

    ... approximately 71 years too late.
    I was thinking as a statement. It’s maybe the sort of thing that would really piss him off.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,665

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,205
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    Disposible income per capita:

    Germany $36k
    France $30k
    UK $36k
    Luxembourg $50k

    So substantially richer, but not much as the GDP suggests, of course.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,319
    If the whole country could be practically shut down for Covid 19 in March 2020 then the boats could also be stopped.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,359
    Even the No10 comms team are trolling PM Keir Starmer now...
    https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1929108089501782412
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,516
    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,775

    algarkirk said:

    a

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    18 boats carrying 1,194 illegal migrants crossed yesterday.

    That’s the highest daily figure this year.

    Where are all the women and children?


    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1929131768008827188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Over 1000 in a day is absolutely toxic for starmer. He has so clearly NOT “smashed the gangs”. And he cancelled the one idea anyone had for stopping them humanely, even if it was absurd and expensive and extreme - it might still have worked

    And, besides, what have Labour tried since? Offshore processing hubs - like Rwanda. Except unlike the Tories starmer couldn’t even get the agreement of the host country - in his case Albania, which humiliatingly turned him down live, on air

    Can Starmer’s and Labour’s polling go lower?

    Yes
    It surprised me that people criticised details of the Rwanda scheme as impractical etc, when I thought it was a deterrent rather than a practical solution. So we’d only have to send a few dozen there and potential illegal immigrants would think better of crossing the channel. A system we’d barely have to use, but knowing it was there would do the job
    Yes of course. It was a deterrent. And it might well have worked AS A DETERRENT

    Which is why Labour - having criticised Rwanda for being heartless and useless for years - are now desperately seeking to do versions of their own. Like Albania
    Nah Rwanda was shite. It was more tinkering. A holding prison on the Falklands is a more plausible option provided that people have an option to voluntarily return home, in my view. Not sure whether the Falklands will want such a prison on their island though.
    The Falklanders will have no choice. They entirely rely on the uk to stop them being Argentinian. Mainland Brits died to defend that right of theirs

    So they owe the mother country, big time

    Also

    1. Falklanders are now seriously rich (fishing licenses). They will cope

    2. No one lives on west Falkland - as @Sean_F notes. We wouldn’t be dispossessing anyone (and if we end up doing that, it will be a few bleak sheep farms, so whatever - compensate them)

    Yes it will be expensive and difficult initially. But right now we are spending FIVE BILLION A YEAR hosting these people and the bill is only rising, fast

    And again the point is: we wouldn’t have to do it for long. Because the deterrent effect would be immediate and massive and the boats would stop very quick
    Having visited the Falklands it would be ideal, not least after a couple of well publiised flights the boats would stop
    Why not South Georgia? No locals at all.
    Shackleton was the original boat person to make it to South Georgia seeking help. If you don't know the story, it's one you couldn't make up because it's just impossible. Reading it up freezes the blood.
    We sailed it on our 'in Shackleton's footsteps' Antarctica expedition and visited his grave

    It is quite an extraordinary feet of survival not least due to the cold and heavy seas
    Also extraordinary survival of feet given all the frostbite.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,741
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    I must give it a visit on my next pass through the Low Countries, which happens from time to time.

    The House of Luxembourg were of course Holy Roman Emperors at one time. Fading grandeur and all that. Of course I'd be happier in the EU if it was a bit more like the HRE.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    algarkirk said:

    a

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    18 boats carrying 1,194 illegal migrants crossed yesterday.

    That’s the highest daily figure this year.

    Where are all the women and children?


    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1929131768008827188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Over 1000 in a day is absolutely toxic for starmer. He has so clearly NOT “smashed the gangs”. And he cancelled the one idea anyone had for stopping them humanely, even if it was absurd and expensive and extreme - it might still have worked

    And, besides, what have Labour tried since? Offshore processing hubs - like Rwanda. Except unlike the Tories starmer couldn’t even get the agreement of the host country - in his case Albania, which humiliatingly turned him down live, on air

    Can Starmer’s and Labour’s polling go lower?

    Yes
    It surprised me that people criticised details of the Rwanda scheme as impractical etc, when I thought it was a deterrent rather than a practical solution. So we’d only have to send a few dozen there and potential illegal immigrants would think better of crossing the channel. A system we’d barely have to use, but knowing it was there would do the job
    Yes of course. It was a deterrent. And it might well have worked AS A DETERRENT

    Which is why Labour - having criticised Rwanda for being heartless and useless for years - are now desperately seeking to do versions of their own. Like Albania
    Nah Rwanda was shite. It was more tinkering. A holding prison on the Falklands is a more plausible option provided that people have an option to voluntarily return home, in my view. Not sure whether the Falklands will want such a prison on their island though.
    The Falklanders will have no choice. They entirely rely on the uk to stop them being Argentinian. Mainland Brits died to defend that right of theirs

    So they owe the mother country, big time

    Also

    1. Falklanders are now seriously rich (fishing licenses). They will cope

    2. No one lives on west Falkland - as @Sean_F notes. We wouldn’t be dispossessing anyone (and if we end up doing that, it will be a few bleak sheep farms, so whatever - compensate them)

    Yes it will be expensive and difficult initially. But right now we are spending FIVE BILLION A YEAR hosting these people and the bill is only rising, fast

    And again the point is: we wouldn’t have to do it for long. Because the deterrent effect would be immediate and massive and the boats would stop very quick
    Having visited the Falklands it would be ideal, not least after a couple of well publiised flights the boats would stop
    Why not South Georgia? No locals at all.
    Shackleton was the original boat person to make it to South Georgia seeking help. If you don't know the story, it's one you couldn't make up because it's just impossible. Reading it up freezes the blood.
    We sailed it on our 'in Shackleton's footsteps' Antarctica expedition and visited his grave

    It is quite an extraordinary feet of survival not least due to the cold and heavy seas
    Also extraordinary survival of feet given all the frostbite.
    Me and my spelling - yes an extraordinary feat
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,833

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    I think those people should be challenged to describe what "easily done in practical terms" looks like in reality, because it's the RNLI being forced to watch people drown in the channel.

    The one thing Reform did actually propose that makes *political* sense is housing refugees in giant tent cities rather than hotels/hostels. That would both be a deterrent and achievable for a government. I'm really surprised they haven't pushed that line much harder.

    For local communities, it would be the only thing worse than a group of travellers take over a sports pitch; if Starmer had any vindictiveness in him he'd be proposing the tent city in Lincolnshire.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    Touch and go in cricket despite Root 154
  • novanova Posts: 834

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,833

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    To be fair, you're one of the few people on here attempting a workable and legal solution. "Stop the boats" is just a slogan, in the same way that "boost productivity" and "reform the NHS" are meaningless.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846
    fitalass said:

    Even the No10 comms team are trolling PM Keir Starmer now...
    https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1929108089501782412

    Even GPT would have managed a simple "We're boosting spending on defence and our brave boys. We're keeping you and yours safe. [STOP_TOKEN]".

    Maybe Keir should focus on his media team when making us an 'AI Powerhouse'...
  • Mexicanpete has been banned.

    About time Horse! He's not exactly on message. Good riddance I say!
    Mexicanpete has been exterminated.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109

    Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.

    How?
    Make Nigel .Minister for Boats?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,665

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325
    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    Wouldn't be easy because of the dreadful state that criminal justice has been left in by the Tories. We need a lot more police and courts efficiently able to try people and jails to put convicts in.

    We should be trying to fast track processes for all of those. The time to start is months ago.
  • Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    "You don't have the cards"...

    Administration sources told @CBSNews that the White House wasn't aware that today's large-scale drone attack by Ukraine on the Russian military aircraft was coming.
    https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1929172659251581064
    That's really bad of the Ukrainians. How can the Whitehouse tip off the Kremlin if no one tells Pete Hegseth of a planned offensive.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,319
    Chris said:

    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.

    Was there any evidence of anti-Reform tactical voting at the local elections?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846
    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    Old Bert (I know! I know!) from the local boozer said he'd do it. Used to be some sort of 'warden' back in the day. Or at least his dad was. Same thing.

    Stern look and some tutting. That's what it takes.

    ...

    Or.... how about we blow those children out of the water with good old fashion cannons! We'd get a good Banksy out of it. Maybe a bit of a tourist boost. But tourists are quite often foreign. Maybe I should....


    (And yes, I have spent too long reading LLM 'thinking' tokens. No need to thank me.)
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Omg Switzerland is INSANE

    You can pay £50 for an ok pizza
    That’s what I thought. Will be stocking up on essentials (wine, beer, etc) before we leave Germany. Still, it’s somewhere we haven’t been yet.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,376
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    Disposible income per capita:

    Germany $36k
    France $30k
    UK $36k
    Luxembourg $50k

    So substantially richer, but not much as the GDP suggests, of course.
    "We are considerably richer than yow!"
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584
    Well done Joe Root with amazing 166 not out winning score

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,231

    Joe Root is the GOAT.

    What a great innings and game.

    Having said that, not sure this is entirely appropriate.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,744
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    We will go down the eu route sooner or later, the greek route of machine gunning them or the rest of the eu route of selling them into libyan slavery
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,846

    Labour simply must stop the boats. Whatever it costs.

    How?
    Make Nigel .Minister for Boats?
    In a way - it would be an interesting move for Keir to invite Nigel in to be 'in charge' of all that. I'm sure he'd refuse - but it'd be a bold step to publicly offer him Musk-esque Carte-Blanche to 'stop the boats'.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    To be fair, you're one of the few people on here attempting a workable and legal solution. "Stop the boats" is just a slogan, in the same way that "boost productivity" and "reform the NHS" are meaningless.
    Here’s a plan to solve all three. Every small boat that arrives is filled with GP receptionists and returned to France. It reduces an NHS logjam, reforming the NHS. It results in zero net migration. If working people can actually see a doctor, they can get back to work more quickly, boosting productivity. I realise it means that GPs will have to work harder, possibly even full time, but that should be possible if we also send BMA officials to France on small boats.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,516
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,432

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Omg Switzerland is INSANE

    You can pay £50 for an ok pizza
    That’s what I thought. Will be stocking up on essentials (wine, beer, etc) before we leave Germany. Still, it’s somewhere we haven’t been yet.
    It is, in many places, quite phenomenally beautiful

    Splurge and have a trout lunch by some lake with the icy frosted Alps beyond. Luzerne is one of my absolute favourites. A gem amongst gems

    Public transport is relatively cheap and super reliable. People can be a little cold, they get friendlier the closer you get to the Italian bit. Food is hit and miss

    But really its the astonishing landscapes
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,344
    STOP THE BOATS....SMASH THE GANGS....next slogan required....
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,281
    England were 1mm away from losing that
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,315

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is eye watering
  • It seems to me that the boats can only be stopped by cooperation with the French in some form.

    I am open to the idea of offshore processing but that needs to be all for that arrive, just sending failed ones there will not be a deterrent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,844

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    "You don't have the cards"...

    Administration sources told @CBSNews that the White House wasn't aware that today's large-scale drone attack by Ukraine on the Russian military aircraft was coming.
    https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1929172659251581064
    That's really bad of the Ukrainians. How can the Whitehouse tip off the Kremlin if no one tells Pete Hegseth of a planned offensive.
    That’s impressive maintenance of confidntiality.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,205

    STOP THE BOATS....SMASH THE GANGS....next slogan required....

    CIRCLE THE DRAIN
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,315
    edited June 1

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters.
    Alternatively park a large ship with lots of tents etc and process them at sea and reject them quickly and one way ticket to where they want to go or swim back.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,344
    edited June 1

    It seems to me that the boats can only be stopped by cooperation with the French in some form.

    I am open to the idea of offshore processing but that needs to be all for that arrive, just sending failed ones there will not be a deterrent.

    We have tried that, and paid for the privilege, and then tried again, and paid some more, and rinse and repeat....
  • novanova Posts: 834

    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    Wouldn't be easy because of the dreadful state that criminal justice has been left in by the Tories. We need a lot more police and courts efficiently able to try people and jails to put convicts in.

    We should be trying to fast track processes for all of those. The time to start is months ago.
    I'd have thought stopping the majority of crime within the next four years would be tricky, even if the Tories had showered the police and justice system with gold for the last decade ;)

    Still, I suspect it would be a vote winner.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801
    edited June 1
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Omg Switzerland is INSANE

    You can pay £50 for an ok pizza
    That’s what I thought. Will be stocking up on essentials (wine, beer, etc) before we leave Germany. Still, it’s somewhere we haven’t been yet.
    It is, in many places, quite phenomenally beautiful

    Splurge and have a trout lunch by some lake with the icy frosted Alps beyond. Luzerne is one of my absolute favourites. A gem amongst gems

    Public transport is relatively cheap and super reliable. People can be a little cold, they get friendlier the closer you get to the Italian bit. Food is hit and miss

    But really its the astonishing landscapes
    That’s why we’re going. Planning to visit Italy via the St. Bernard Pass, visit Interlaken and a sail on Lake Geneva (not in a small boat). Will look for a trout lunch.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109

    STOP THE BOATS....SMASH THE GANGS....next slogan required....

    Get Boats Done or Build Back Boats.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,699
    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
  • novanova Posts: 834
    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters
    What do you think the French would do in response?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,231
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    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.

    Was there any evidence of anti-Reform tactical voting at the local elections?
    On a macro level, not really.

    On a micro level, I voted for the candidate I thought most likely to defeat Reform ... and he did.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,727

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,344
    Taz said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
    As the son of a toolmaker....
  • Taz said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
    I think he gets how important it is. I can’t believe he won’t go home without a fight.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,296
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    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.

    Was there any evidence of anti-Reform tactical voting at the local elections?
    Is there any evidence a General Election where you elect a PM and put someone in charge of the economy is remotely the same as a local shire council election?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,231

    Taz said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
    I think he gets how important it is. I can’t believe he won’t go home without a fight.
    On whose behalf will he be fighting?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,315
    edited June 1
    nova said:

    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters
    What do you think the French would do in response?
    try and tow them back , so we just need to have the best most powerfiuls ships.
    sink a few and they will stop coming
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    STOP THE BOATS....SMASH THE GANGS....next slogan required....

    Bang the Gangs
  • rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
  • Taz said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
    I think he gets how important it is. I can’t believe he won’t go home without a fight.
    On whose behalf will he be fighting?
    Labour’s, because if he doesn’t he’ll not be re-elected.

    I still think people underrate his political abilities. He will know that if he doesn’t sort this Labour will be out.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574

    Nigelb said:

    “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

    No known precedent? Obviously planned by someone who's just binge-watched SAS Rogue Heroes careering about the desert.
    I think there are a few parallels for quiet attacks making significant damage, but not really precendents for taking out strategic resources. This has apparently made quite the hole in Russia's nuclear triad's air force leg.

    - SAS on German airfields in North Africa WW2, where they went days behind the lines and took out dozens of aircraft.
    - There was one in the Battle of Britain, where a single (maybe two) German aircraft lowered their wheels and pretended to be friendly, then bombed a repair hangar and hit a similar number of aircraft. I can't recall the base.
    - Behind the lines in the Gulf War.
    - I'd punt that there have been Israeli operations, including in Iraq. Did they not take out key scientists in Iraq's nuclear programme partially to behead it? I'm not comparing the centrifuge hack as that was remote.
    - Perhaps the closest parallel I can see was Operation Gunnarside attacking the Vemork hydro.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,665

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    Again, there's words and the meaning of those words. What does "all necessary means" represent in this instance? Physical interdiction of the boats themselves, I understand, but if a boat refuses to stop or has reached a beach and is off-loading, what then?

    Are you advocating the deliberate sinking of the boats by some method? What about the migrants in the water? Would they be rescued or left to drown? Would you impede rescue efforts?
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968
    malcolmg said:

    nova said:

    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters
    What do you think the French would do in response?
    try and tow them back , so we just need to have the best most powerfiuls ships.
    sink a few and they will stop coming
    Sure. If they do get onto the beach at Dover just machine gun a few dozen and that'll set an example.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,516
    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,879
    nova said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    My plan to collapse the black economy would collapse demand.

    - doesn’t depend on the French
    - Breaks no law, international or national
    - Fucks up the scum who exploit
    - Offers the migrants justice against their abusers.
    - self enforcing

    How easy do you think that would be?

    Doesn't it involve stopping pretty much all crime?
    1) each instance of deliberately employing someone illegally is punishable by a £100k fine. This includes a number of crimes including visa sale
    2) use the Proceeds of Crime laws to prevent hiding assets from liability behind ltd companies etc. So the houses of directors of a chain of companies could be seized. As they are for drugs.
    3) half the fine goes to the person giving evidence, upon conviction.
    4) if they don’t have full U.K. status, give the. Indefinite leave to remain.
    5) legislation to prevent using contracting as a shield.

    Quite simply, every person you are employing illegally has a £50k motive (and a visa) to report you.

    The scale of the fines would make catching the employers *profitable* for the government.

    Private prosecutions via ambulance chaser lawyers would be fun to add to the mix.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,775
    edited June 1
    Stereodog said:

    STOP THE BOATS....SMASH THE GANGS....next slogan required....

    Bang the Gangs
    SMASH THE BOATS WITH MIGRANTS IN THEM
  • novanova Posts: 834
    malcolmg said:

    nova said:

    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    He doesn't have a clue. "Violence to defend the integrity of our borders". OK, so we have 40 people balanced precariously on a rib boat in the channel. How do we "use violence" against them. Sink them? How many Aylan Kurdi photos does he think the British public are willing to tolerate?
    tow them back to french waters
    What do you think the French would do in response?
    try and tow them back , so we just need to have the best most powerfiuls ships.
    sink a few and they will stop coming
    So we need to have a better navy than the French, and then battle it out in the channel till we sink a few boats of refugees? Or a few French boats?

    Do you have a real answer?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,801

    Taz said:

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    I’m sure he gets it and is in listening mode.
    As the son of a toolmaker....
    The only one who could ever reach me
    Was the son of a toolmaker man
    The only boy who could ever teach me
    Was the son of a toolmaker man
    Yes, he was, he was, ooh, yes, he was

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,584

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574
    Taz said:

    CatMan said:

    Leon said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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.
    You know when you go to the airport and you don't have a ticket? Or a passport? Or a visa where needed? You aren't allowed to board because you won't be allowed to disembark.

    I can't tell you what the specific agreements are but its self-evident that sovereign nations do not allow other sovereign nations to just dump people in their territory without due process.

    What do you envisage? We stick a load of people from random nations onto a plane and fly them to France? And they are allowed to land and throw people off the plane with no paperwork or process?
    Build a huge concentration camp for them in east Falkland. Safe but basic and cold and bleak

    As soon as these migrants realise they really ain’t getting into Britain the boats will stop immediately

    You just need to punish the first few thousand and deterrence will take care of the rest for eternity

    No one bothers to try and get to Australia any more because they know they can’t get in
    Are there not countless small islands in the British Isles we could use?
    Summerisle?
    Oh Jesus Christ !!
    Fenton !!!!

    Isle of Thanet, as I've mentioned before. Complete with a supply of boats, to France for the sailing of !
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,205
    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    And what if the rejected ones get into boats?
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968

    Stereodog said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Ultimately neither Starmer or Hermer are going to do anything to recluse the ECHR or any other treaty as they are both human right lawyers who cannot imagine any challenge to the law, even though these laws are being questioned by many in Europe and not just on the right

    It would go against everything Starmer has been trained to believe but ultimately it will be his downfall if he does not stop the boats

    And I would just say to those arguing this is anti foreigner, it does not help your case as this is far from that but in most peoples eyes it is unfair and this is now even being expressed by Labour politicians who know they cannot make excuses anymore

    Starmer is exactly the kind of person who could sell a revised refugee convention to a domestic and international audience. Generous, robust and sensible.

    A bit like how the Conservatives did gay marriage.
    You may be right but that would take years and he doesn't have years to stop the boats

    And remarkably we are only a month away from Labour commencing their second year in office and owning their decisions
    I don't think stopping the boats is possible - or at least not within a 5 year period. A significant reduction? Maybe.

    But Labour can certainly make lots of cheap noise about it. Even a proposal would be valuable, particularly if they can challenge the French to sign up to it.
    And this is why people think the political system is broken. Stopping the boats could easily be done in practical terms but with the way we're governed it becomes impossible.
    "Could easily be done in practical terms" - really?

    On the assumption you're not advocating violence and on the assumption you can't get the French and others to play ball and on the third assumption an offshore facility in (fill in the blank) wouldn't be ready for months if not years, I'd genuinely welcome hearing a practical and coherent solution.
    What wrong with using violence to defend the integrity of our borders? Poland does it.
    Just so I'm clear - are you advocating the physical interdiction of migrant craft by, presumably, the Royal Navy or Border Patrol? Once intercepted, the migrants are taken back to French waters irrespective of location.

    Are you advocating something beyond even that? There's violence and there's something beyond violence.
    If you announce beforehand that from now on, boats will not be allowed to make the crossing and you will use all necessary means to prevent then, how long do you think it would be before they stop?
    But that would be a lie and everyone would know it. No UK government (even a Reform one) is going to take 'all means necessary ' if that means torpedoing boat loads of migrants or fighting the French navy to drop them back at Calais.
    It has to not be a lie. As for "no UK government" doing it, that's more evidence that we have a broken state that has forgotten what's its primary purpose is.
    Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the Navy would obey an order to open fire on unarmed civilians.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 968
    carnforth said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    And what if the rejected ones get into boats?
    It would at least clarify their status as illegally immigrants rather than asylum seekers.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,500
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    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.

    Was there any evidence of anti-Reform tactical voting at the local elections?
    Re Chris's point, I think what Curtice means is that Reform have a variable but national spread of support, and that just as Labour got 400+ seats with under 34% of the vote, so, if the remaining vote remains fragmented as now Reform will do well. Baxtering gives that sort of result too.

    Yes, if there is tactical voting of a highly effective sort this won't happen. But there is a problem with tactical voting in a lot of seats, namely is it Tory or Labour you vote tactically for. So don't expect the non-Reform parties to play nicely together on this.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,325

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,281
    CatMan said:

    England were 1mm away from losing that



    I rest my case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,109

    rkrkrk said:

    I do wonder whether allowing asylum seekers in Calais to apply from France might work. Presumably there would be many more asylum seekers accepted, but far fewer crossing by boat. Might stop the headlines a bit.

    Oddly the crossings started increasing in number after Brexit. In the EU I believe we had different rules applied.
    The crossings only started after the migrants using HGVs on ferries to gain access to UK was stopped in 2018
    I don't think there were any boat crossings until July 5th 2024. Pint sized politician Robert Jenrick was going on about it last week, these boat people don't pay their train fares either. Not like on Bob's watch.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,078

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Didn’t expect Luxembourg to be this… agreeable

    I’m putting it on my list of potential holiday places. You’re the second recommendation this week!
    It’s not mind blowing but it is rather pleasant and tranquil and makes an unusual change. The people are a nice mix of German calm and efficiency but with some more charm and humour but without French hauteur

    I guess being insanely rich adds to national gaiety

    Also it’s NOT expensive as far as I can see. They may have gdp per capita way higher than Switzerland but bars and restaurants are about French prices
    We are off tomorrow for a week in Germany (Bad Kreuznach), Switzerland (Leysin) and France (Epernay). Any hints and tips welcome. How much more expensive is Switzerland than Germany and France?
    Switzerland is v expensive but there are ways you can save money. If you do more than minimal travel invest in one of the passes. Also cafeterias in supermarkets and station buffets etc can do very acceptable dish of the day plus salad. Used to be about 15F, probably hasn't changed much. Thing about Switzerland, basic standards are high. You don't need to go upscale.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,574

    Sir Keir simply must stop the boats. I have every confidence he can.

    1) How?
    2) Why?
    I am surprised at how negative you are on this

    I did ask you earlier what is Ed Davey's position on this and it would be far more helpful if you would suggest solutions rather than prevarication

    How is multi facetted with some suggestions on here, but you ask why and to be honest maybe that shows your real attitude to the issue

    Why is simply answered by it is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters in this county including Labour and maybe even Lib Dem supporters
    I didn't see your comment earlier which is why I haven't answered. As I have said a few times, everyone wants the boat crossings to stop. We have a broadly positive view of migration because we know that our economy still relies on them.

    I have suggested solutions - we need to work internationally to manage asylum, we need legal and safe routes to apply for asylum, and we need to actually process claims so that people aren't left in limbo for years. And where we have people sat waiting on a decision and they have skills we need, why aren't we letting them work? We've had examples of Syrian doctors sat festering for extended periods unable to work at the exact same time as we have shortages of staff.

    But I am negative at the hopium / kill them all comments because they deserve to be negative.
    Yes ! That's all "if I ruled the world for a day" fantasy stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.