Despite the rampant speculation and widespread shitting on fracking here, even RCS has I believe acknowledged (he can update me if this has changed) that a ban should not be in place. We have safety standards. These companies are not looking for Government subsidy. They should be allowed to operate if they can do so within the law. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and cant over energy infrastructure. We're happy to see landscapes sacrificed to vast pilons and birds sacrificed to windmills because it's all for 'the transition'. But we're against any possible disturbance to the rural idyll to get a profitable means of energy generation up and running.
Furthermore, I see absolutely zero reason why the UK cannot be a net energy exporter with the ample hydrocarbon, tidal, and other resources we have. I consider RCS's views on the subject to be valuable but not impartial.
If yo are taking about Fracking - get planning permission form the local government and I wouldn’t have a problem with it (beyond the fact I don’t think there are profitable sites in the UK).
But locals do need a say and given they will say no I aspect that’s something you will try and override.
Tidal - I think a lot of us haven’t a clue why we haven’t gone for it
I agree on all counts.
I suspect there is a lot of gas, that it can be got out profitably, and that it would cause some minor disturbances, with locals happy because their mouths had been stuffed with gold (deservedly).
Those are just my suspicions. It could be a bust, and that's showbiz.
Your suspicions based on no actual evidence at all and counter to everything those who actually know anything about the subject say.
You're not remotely impartial either. I qualified it as a suspicion and nothing more, so up yours.
No I am not impartial. I would love for fracking to be viable in the UK so it means loads more work for me and my colleagues and much better energy security for the country. Sadly it is not the case.
I base my comments on reality. Even when I wish it were otherwise.You base yours on nothing more than wishful thinking and ignorance and then get upset when this is pointed out to you by those of us who actually understand the facts.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
Women increasingly can’t be doing with the disruption and burden of motherhood. Especially poorer ones, who are least likely to have the financial, familial and emotional support required in what ought to be the most societally respected of all roles
Farage is making all the political running, and it doesn’t appear as if other parties have a coherent response.
It’s very sad. It should be obvious that a Farage or Reform government will end up debauching and impoverishing the country, perhaps slowly at first and then probably quite quickly.
Yet I feel that such a government is increasingly odds-on.
On the policy announcements, the broad strokes actually make sense. The intent to resile from any and all international humanitarian agreements does not - and leads to disaster; as others have pointed out, the smarter way to go is via renegotiation and/or re-interpretation of the ECHR.
I can’t understand why Starmer isn’t shooting Farage’s fox. Invite all the Westminster party leaders to Chequers in the national interest. And don’t let anyone leave until they have agreed on a joint statement / policy prescription.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
More that having children is a ton of work for women.
Strangely, they don’t want to pay to do a ton of work - which is the effective situation in many countries.
Despite the rampant speculation and widespread shitting on fracking here, even RCS has I believe acknowledged (he can update me if this has changed) that a ban should not be in place. We have safety standards. These companies are not looking for Government subsidy. They should be allowed to operate if they can do so within the law. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and cant over energy infrastructure. We're happy to see landscapes sacrificed to vast pilons and birds sacrificed to windmills because it's all for 'the transition'. But we're against any possible disturbance to the rural idyll to get a profitable means of energy generation up and running.
Furthermore, I see absolutely zero reason why the UK cannot be a net energy exporter with the ample hydrocarbon, tidal, and other resources we have. I consider RCS's views on the subject to be valuable but not impartial.
If yo are taking about Fracking - get planning permission form the local government and I wouldn’t have a problem with it (beyond the fact I don’t think there are profitable sites in the UK).
But locals do need a say and given they will say no I aspect that’s something you will try and override.
Tidal - I think a lot of us haven’t a clue why we haven’t gone for it
I agree on all counts.
I suspect there is a lot of gas, that it can be got out profitably, and that it would cause some minor disturbances, with locals happy because their mouths had been stuffed with gold (deservedly).
Those are just my suspicions. It could be a bust, and that's showbiz.
Your suspicions based on no actual evidence at all and counter to everything those who actually know anything about the subject say.
You're not remotely impartial either. I qualified it as a suspicion and nothing more, so up yours.
No I am not impartial. I would love for fracking to be viable in the UK so it means loads more work for me and my colleagues and much better energy security for the country. Sadly it is not the case.
I base my comments on reality. Even when I wish it were otherwise.You base yours on nothing more than wishful thinking and ignorance and then get upset when this is pointed out to you by those of us who actually understand the facts.
All you need to do is compare the width of rural roads in the UK to the US to understand why onshore fracking here becomes too painful to bother with at any scale.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
Yes and no. The negative externalities given the UK’s population density and archaic road network are considerable. So there is for sure a role for government. On the other hand, banning it because of earthquakes risk, which is my memory of the debate at the time…
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
As I saidvyesterday I would agree with that so long as we changed the law and made Directors and Senior executives of all the fracking companies personally responsible for the clean up when their company fails.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
Women increasingly can’t be doing with the disruption and burden of motherhood. Especially poorer ones, who are least likely to have the financial, familial and emotional support required in what ought to be the most societally respected of all roles
But there are interesting exceptions. Central Asia is the most striking. The Kazakh TFR is over 3 - and having recently been there I can confirm it is overrun with babies
And the women are certainly not Islamically oppressed. The burqa is banned and imams are licensed. Political Islam js strictly controlled, women are completely equal, and you probably see more hijabs in london than Astana
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
It's another Brexit benefit. Free of the Dublin Returns Agreement we're able to enjoy a bigger better and - most importantly - fully sovereign migrants crisis.
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
Yes and no. The negative externalities given the UK’s population density and archaic road network are considerable. So there is for sure a role for government. On the other hand, banning it because of earthquakes risk, which is my memory of the debate at the time…
Narrow roads and such are either an obstacle for firms to deal with (or not), or protected by environmental and planning legislation.
A blanket ban is simply “computer says no”. Which is what the market basically hears everytime it thinks about the British economy these days.
Sitting in my sitting room with shelves cleared. Going away for a few days
When I get back all the walls will be a different colour entirely. It’s a slightly unsettling feeling
Turquoise?
I’ve gone for a very bold blue. Hick’s Blue. Slightly nervous
But I’m bored of these polite greys and creams and greige. I’m not getting any younger and I want to turn my flat into something radical - opulently weird. Stage set for Act 3
Halfway there but this is a big step
I guess if I hate it I can always paint it back. There is that
And so the late midlife crisis continues.
It’s quaint that he can describe his bedsit as different rooms depending on which way he’s facing at the time!
Sinking down to the level of attempting a boast about your decorating, on a site devoted to discussing politics and betting, is extraordinarily sad. Clue: no-one else on here posts pictures of their walls at home.
You have only one friend. It’s a dog. You pointlessly travel the world with that solitary friend. A dog. You then come on to a site “devoted to discussing politics and betting” and you post 300,000 sad and eerie photos of you travelling the world totally alone with your only friend. Which is a dog.
I have one of those dilemmas because I know you know this and only do it for a reaction, but I'm afraid I can't resist, so well done @Leon, but you obviously do get the irony of that post when you have been posting for weeks about your flat decorating on a politics and betting site. And you travel the world posting pictures with not even a dog for a friend.
And for gods sake when is it going to be finished. It is a one bedroom flat for crying out loud, not Buckingham Palace.
Others will be glad to know there will not be a pedal by pedal and pot hole by pot hole report of my trip down the Canal du Midi which starts at the end of this week.
Would that be the same trip for which you directly messaged me, asking for travel advice? Which I kindly gave you? Just wondering
No it isn't, although it isn't far away and your suggestion does look interesting. As I said at the time I haven't been there for about 25 years and a return visit does look good. I just went and reread our chat which was really nice - thank you. As was the one on how Tourism Journalism works which I appreciated as I didn't know that detail. I find some of the offline chats I have with others here really interesting.
No, this is my annual cycle trip in France. I always pick somewhere flat, usually following rivers or canals or old railway lines or just flat areas, usually on Greenways. This one is the Canal du Midi, which has been on the agenda for sometime. Last year was the Loire, before that I have done Poitier to the coast and back, North Brittany to South Brittany and back, Normandy and Bordeaux to Biarritz. We only have bikes and it is all self organised and carrying all our stuff so we need to keep to a route because we can only do so much in a day. We are also doing another canal down to Narbonne and as you know we will be staying in the prison at Beziers.
PS not criticising your posts, just pointing out the irony, but you know that anyway. It is your way of having fun with us.
Leon, surely the biggest travel story in the world right now is that no-one wants to go to the US. Go to some resorts - find out if its true, speak to those who have braved it, see if they had worries, whether they still have worries having made the trip. Is it cheaper/more choice/smaller queues at Disneyland? Is it a brilliant time to travel there (depending on what you write might get you the Presidential Medal of Freedom....).
Anecdata: the woman from the fish and chip shop who was planning to visit America next month is instead going to India for a couple of weeks.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
Women increasingly can’t be doing with the disruption and burden of motherhood. Especially poorer ones, who are least likely to have the financial, familial and emotional support required in what ought to be the most societally respected of all roles
But there are interesting exceptions. Central Asia is the most striking. The Kazakh TFR is over 3 - and having recently been there I can confirm it is overrun with babies
And the women are certainly not Islamically oppressed. The burqa is banned and imams are licensed. Political Islam js strictly controlled, women are completely equal, and you probably see more hijabs in london than Astana
Kazakhstan's birth rate is currently considered low and declining, falling for several years and reaching decade-lows in early 2025. After a pandemic-era baby boom, the trend reversed, with the total fertility rate (TFR) dropping to around 15.4 births per 1,000 people by early 2025 from a 2021 peak of 23.5. This decline is observed across the country, with rural areas experiencing a particularly noticeable drop
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
Given what childbirth and - to a great degree - child rearing* actually entails for women, it is hardly surprising if when given the choice they opt for one or two rather than five or more.
*I know there's meant to be sexual equality these days, but I'm still not really seeing it tbh. Most women in relationships I see still do most of the childcare.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
I expect Farage will just withdraw from the ECHR no matter the consequences
He is following the Trump playbook
The backlash against mass third world migration is becoming as loud in Ireland as it is here. If the John Lennon no-borders types think a second version of the Northern Ireland Protocol will maintain their cosy status quo, I fear they will be disappointed.
Your profile permission is private. That isn't allowed anymore. See @TheScreamingEagles post of a couple of days ago.
I would have liked to have three (rather than two) kids, but:
My wife has a career. I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family. I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
Women increasingly can’t be doing with the disruption and burden of motherhood. Especially poorer ones, who are least likely to have the financial, familial and emotional support required in what ought to be the most societally respected of all roles
But there are interesting exceptions. Central Asia is the most striking. The Kazakh TFR is over 3 - and having recently been there I can confirm it is overrun with babies
And the women are certainly not Islamically oppressed. The burqa is banned and imams are licensed. Political Islam js strictly controlled, women are completely equal, and you probably see more hijabs in london than Astana
Kazakhstan's birth rate is currently considered low and declining, falling for several years and reaching decade-lows in early 2025. After a pandemic-era baby boom, the trend reversed, with the total fertility rate (TFR) dropping to around 15.4 births per 1,000 people by early 2025 from a 2021 peak of 23.5. This decline is observed across the country, with rural areas experiencing a particularly noticeable drop
“Asia’s demographic outliers: Kazakhstan and its neighbours are way, way beyond replacement fertility”
“Over the past several decades, much of Asia, from Singapore to Seoul, has been experiencing a demographic implosion of unsettling proportions – just look at Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Kazakhstan and its Central Asia neighbors, meanwhile, stand out as exceptions to the regional norm.
“Asian states jittery about their below-replacement birth rates – less than 2.1 births on average per woman – might learn something from Kazakhstan’s recent experience.”
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
It's another Brexit benefit. Free of the Dublin Returns Agreement we're able to enjoy a bigger better and - most importantly - fully sovereign migrants crisis.
The Dublin Regulations had already been destroyed long before we voted to leave the EU. Indeed Hungary tried to apply the rules in 2015 and was roundly attacked for it by both the EU and countries like Germany.
Sitting in my sitting room with shelves cleared. Going away for a few days
When I get back all the walls will be a different colour entirely. It’s a slightly unsettling feeling
Turquoise?
I’ve gone for a very bold blue. Hick’s Blue. Slightly nervous
But I’m bored of these polite greys and creams and greige. I’m not getting any younger and I want to turn my flat into something radical - opulently weird. Stage set for Act 3
Halfway there but this is a big step
I guess if I hate it I can always paint it back. There is that
And so the late midlife crisis continues.
It’s quaint that he can describe his bedsit as different rooms depending on which way he’s facing at the time!
Sinking down to the level of attempting a boast about your decorating, on a site devoted to discussing politics and betting, is extraordinarily sad. Clue: no-one else on here posts pictures of their walls at home.
You have only one friend. It’s a dog. You pointlessly travel the world with that solitary friend. A dog. You then come on to a site “devoted to discussing politics and betting” and you post 300,000 sad and eerie photos of you travelling the world totally alone with your only friend. Which is a dog.
I have one of those dilemmas because I know you know this and only do it for a reaction, but I'm afraid I can't resist, so well done @Leon, but you obviously do get the irony of that post when you have been posting for weeks about your flat decorating on a politics and betting site. And you travel the world posting pictures with not even a dog for a friend.
And for gods sake when is it going to be finished. It is a one bedroom flat for crying out loud, not Buckingham Palace.
Others will be glad to know there will not be a pedal by pedal and pot hole by pot hole report of my trip down the Canal du Midi which starts at the end of this week.
Would that be the same trip for which you directly messaged me, asking for travel advice? Which I kindly gave you? Just wondering
No it isn't, although it isn't far away and your suggestion does look interesting. As I said at the time I haven't been there for about 25 years and a return visit does look good. I just went and reread our chat which was really nice - thank you. As was the one on how Tourism Journalism works which I appreciated as I didn't know that detail. I find some of the offline chats I have with others here really interesting.
No, this is my annual cycle trip in France. I always pick somewhere flat, usually following rivers or canals or old railway lines or just flat areas, usually on Greenways. This one is the Canal du Midi, which has been on the agenda for sometime. Last year was the Loire, before that I have done Poitier to the coast and back, North Brittany to South Brittany and back, Normandy and Bordeaux to Biarritz. We only have bikes and it is all self organised and carrying all our stuff so we need to keep to a route because we can only do so much in a day. We are also doing another canal down to Narbonne and as you know we will be staying in the prison at Beziers.
PS not criticising your posts, just pointing out the irony, but you know that anyway. It is your way of having fun with us.
Bon voyage. Sounds fun
I’m off on assignment right now. To the “Tuscany of Central Europe”
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
It’s always amused me that people think the likes of Philip Hammond, Gordon Brown, Rachel Reeves, Jeremy Hunt etc… are somehow well qualified. Picking a cabinet from MPs is such bottom of the barrel stuff. I’ve worked with loads of people over the years I’d sooner have had as Chancellor than anyone that actually got the job.
The Saj! How could I forget. He was another one. There was sustained sniggering in my circles when he got the gig.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
There's a strong argument for the "you can just do things" approach (and it's certainly where this Labour government is a dismal failure*).
There's plenty of room within the constraints of both liberal democracy and the rule of law for quite radical change. But it requires someone both motivated, and with more than just the vaguest clue of how to go about it.
*The compulsory purchase of building land at fixed prices, which idea they toyed with, is an excellent example.
Despite the rampant speculation and widespread shitting on fracking here, even RCS has I believe acknowledged (he can update me if this has changed) that a ban should not be in place. We have safety standards. These companies are not looking for Government subsidy. They should be allowed to operate if they can do so within the law. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and cant over energy infrastructure. We're happy to see landscapes sacrificed to vast pilons and birds sacrificed to windmills because it's all for 'the transition'. But we're against any possible disturbance to the rural idyll to get a profitable means of energy generation up and running.
Furthermore, I see absolutely zero reason why the UK cannot be a net energy exporter with the ample hydrocarbon, tidal, and other resources we have. I consider RCS's views on the subject to be valuable but not impartial.
If yo are taking about Fracking - get planning permission form the local government and I wouldn’t have a problem with it (beyond the fact I don’t think there are profitable sites in the UK).
But locals do need a say and given they will say no I aspect that’s something you will try and override.
Tidal - I think a lot of us haven’t a clue why we haven’t gone for it
I agree on all counts.
I suspect there is a lot of gas, that it can be got out profitably, and that it would cause some minor disturbances, with locals happy because their mouths had been stuffed with gold (deservedly).
Those are just my suspicions. It could be a bust, and that's showbiz.
Your suspicions based on no actual evidence at all and counter to everything those who actually know anything about the subject say.
You're not remotely impartial either. I qualified it as a suspicion and nothing more, so up yours.
No I am not impartial. I would love for fracking to be viable in the UK so it means loads more work for me and my colleagues and much better energy security for the country. Sadly it is not the case.
I base my comments on reality. Even when I wish it were otherwise.You base yours on nothing more than wishful thinking and ignorance and then get upset when this is pointed out to you by those of us who actually understand the facts.
Be fair. You know NOTHING about the energy sector and Lucky Guy is our resident expert.
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
As I saidvyesterday I would agree with that so long as we changed the law and made Directors and Senior executives of all the fracking companies personally responsible for the clean up when their company fails.
Which is a nice idea, but is not going to happen, so we're back to where we started and it shouldn't be left to the market.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
They stopped trying to get to Australia. We have actual proof that this works. Australia did it
The boats stopped
Now of course we don’t have the good fortune of a remote unpeopled island near our shores but also far enough away - but the principle is established. This can be done and it has been shown that it works
Despite the rampant speculation and widespread shitting on fracking here, even RCS has I believe acknowledged (he can update me if this has changed) that a ban should not be in place. We have safety standards. These companies are not looking for Government subsidy. They should be allowed to operate if they can do so within the law. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and cant over energy infrastructure. We're happy to see landscapes sacrificed to vast pilons and birds sacrificed to windmills because it's all for 'the transition'. But we're against any possible disturbance to the rural idyll to get a profitable means of energy generation up and running.
Furthermore, I see absolutely zero reason why the UK cannot be a net energy exporter with the ample hydrocarbon, tidal, and other resources we have. I consider RCS's views on the subject to be valuable but not impartial.
If yo are taking about Fracking - get planning permission form the local government and I wouldn’t have a problem with it (beyond the fact I don’t think there are profitable sites in the UK).
But locals do need a say and given they will say no I aspect that’s something you will try and override.
Tidal - I think a lot of us haven’t a clue why we haven’t gone for it
I agree on all counts.
I suspect there is a lot of gas, that it can be got out profitably, and that it would cause some minor disturbances, with locals happy because their mouths had been stuffed with gold (deservedly).
Those are just my suspicions. It could be a bust, and that's showbiz.
Your suspicions based on no actual evidence at all and counter to everything those who actually know anything about the subject say.
You're not remotely impartial either. I qualified it as a suspicion and nothing more, so up yours.
No I am not impartial. I would love for fracking to be viable in the UK so it means loads more work for me and my colleagues and much better energy security for the country. Sadly it is not the case.
I base my comments on reality. Even when I wish it were otherwise.You base yours on nothing more than wishful thinking and ignorance and then get upset when this is pointed out to you by those of us who actually understand the facts.
Be fair. You know NOTHING about the energy sector and Lucky Guy is our resident expert.
I do realise that the only person who knows less than me is RCS
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
Surely this is just a case of making life in the holding pen worse than it is in Calais. A cold island off the Scottish coast perhaps, followed by a one way ticket out. Right now you get to stay in a dated but half decent hotel in the centre of some of the countries main tourist cities, a few quid in your pocket and the freedom to roam about.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
I would have liked to have three (rather than two) kids, but:
My wife has a career. I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family. I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
In my experience, people with no kids wish they’d had them. People with one kid wish they’d had two. Those with two wish they’d had three or four
It’s not universal but it is very common. And yet birthrates are down almost everywhere?
Either people are lying (to themselves and the world) or something has gone very wrong in human societies
I would have liked to have three (rather than two) kids, but:
My wife has a career. I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family. I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
In my experience, people with no kids wish they’d had them. People with one kid wish they’d had two. Those with two wish they’d had three or four
It’s not universal but it is very common. And yet birthrates are down almost everywhere?
Either people are lying (to themselves and the world) or something has gone very wrong in human societies
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
I'm a federalist, so I'd have a very reworked UK parliament regardless of this...
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
Sitting in my sitting room with shelves cleared. Going away for a few days
When I get back all the walls will be a different colour entirely. It’s a slightly unsettling feeling
Turquoise?
I’ve gone for a very bold blue. Hick’s Blue. Slightly nervous
But I’m bored of these polite greys and creams and greige. I’m not getting any younger and I want to turn my flat into something radical - opulently weird. Stage set for Act 3
Halfway there but this is a big step
I guess if I hate it I can always paint it back. There is that
And so the late midlife crisis continues.
It’s quaint that he can describe his bedsit as different rooms depending on which way he’s facing at the time!
Sinking down to the level of attempting a boast about your decorating, on a site devoted to discussing politics and betting, is extraordinarily sad. Clue: no-one else on here posts pictures of their walls at home.
You have only one friend. It’s a dog. You pointlessly travel the world with that solitary friend. A dog. You then come on to a site “devoted to discussing politics and betting” and you post 300,000 sad and eerie photos of you travelling the world totally alone with your only friend. Which is a dog.
I have one of those dilemmas because I know you know this and only do it for a reaction, but I'm afraid I can't resist, so well done @Leon, but you obviously do get the irony of that post when you have been posting for weeks about your flat decorating on a politics and betting site. And you travel the world posting pictures with not even a dog for a friend.
And for gods sake when is it going to be finished. It is a one bedroom flat for crying out loud, not Buckingham Palace.
Others will be glad to know there will not be a pedal by pedal and pot hole by pot hole report of my trip down the Canal du Midi which starts at the end of this week.
Would that be the same trip for which you directly messaged me, asking for travel advice? Which I kindly gave you? Just wondering
No it isn't, although it isn't far away and your suggestion does look interesting. As I said at the time I haven't been there for about 25 years and a return visit does look good. I just went and reread our chat which was really nice - thank you. As was the one on how Tourism Journalism works which I appreciated as I didn't know that detail. I find some of the offline chats I have with others here really interesting.
No, this is my annual cycle trip in France. I always pick somewhere flat, usually following rivers or canals or old railway lines or just flat areas, usually on Greenways. This one is the Canal du Midi, which has been on the agenda for sometime. Last year was the Loire, before that I have done Poitier to the coast and back, North Brittany to South Brittany and back, Normandy and Bordeaux to Biarritz. We only have bikes and it is all self organised and carrying all our stuff so we need to keep to a route because we can only do so much in a day. We are also doing another canal down to Narbonne and as you know we will be staying in the prison at Beziers.
PS not criticising your posts, just pointing out the irony, but you know that anyway. It is your way of having fun with us.
Bon voyage. Sounds fun
I’m off on assignment right now. To the “Tuscany of Central Europe”
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
As I saidvyesterday I would agree with that so long as we changed the law and made Directors and Senior executives of all the fracking companies personally responsible for the clean up when their company fails.
Penetrating the corporate veil has all sorts of issues
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
Sitting in my sitting room with shelves cleared. Going away for a few days
When I get back all the walls will be a different colour entirely. It’s a slightly unsettling feeling
Turquoise?
I’ve gone for a very bold blue. Hick’s Blue. Slightly nervous
But I’m bored of these polite greys and creams and greige. I’m not getting any younger and I want to turn my flat into something radical - opulently weird. Stage set for Act 3
Halfway there but this is a big step
I guess if I hate it I can always paint it back. There is that
And so the late midlife crisis continues.
It’s quaint that he can describe his bedsit as different rooms depending on which way he’s facing at the time!
Sinking down to the level of attempting a boast about your decorating, on a site devoted to discussing politics and betting, is extraordinarily sad. Clue: no-one else on here posts pictures of their walls at home.
You have only one friend. It’s a dog. You pointlessly travel the world with that solitary friend. A dog. You then come on to a site “devoted to discussing politics and betting” and you post 300,000 sad and eerie photos of you travelling the world totally alone with your only friend. Which is a dog.
I have one of those dilemmas because I know you know this and only do it for a reaction, but I'm afraid I can't resist, so well done @Leon, but you obviously do get the irony of that post when you have been posting for weeks about your flat decorating on a politics and betting site. And you travel the world posting pictures with not even a dog for a friend.
And for gods sake when is it going to be finished. It is a one bedroom flat for crying out loud, not Buckingham Palace.
Others will be glad to know there will not be a pedal by pedal and pot hole by pot hole report of my trip down the Canal du Midi which starts at the end of this week.
Would that be the same trip for which you directly messaged me, asking for travel advice? Which I kindly gave you? Just wondering
No it isn't, although it isn't far away and your suggestion does look interesting. As I said at the time I haven't been there for about 25 years and a return visit does look good. I just went and reread our chat which was really nice - thank you. As was the one on how Tourism Journalism works which I appreciated as I didn't know that detail. I find some of the offline chats I have with others here really interesting.
No, this is my annual cycle trip in France. I always pick somewhere flat, usually following rivers or canals or old railway lines or just flat areas, usually on Greenways. This one is the Canal du Midi, which has been on the agenda for sometime. Last year was the Loire, before that I have done Poitier to the coast and back, North Brittany to South Brittany and back, Normandy and Bordeaux to Biarritz. We only have bikes and it is all self organised and carrying all our stuff so we need to keep to a route because we can only do so much in a day. We are also doing another canal down to Narbonne and as you know we will be staying in the prison at Beziers.
PS not criticising your posts, just pointing out the irony, but you know that anyway. It is your way of having fun with us.
Bon voyage. Sounds fun
I’m off on assignment right now. To the “Tuscany of Central Europe”
Thank you. Very kind of you. It is great fun. Myself and an old school friend. The cycling is an excuse for eating and drinking and there is nowhere better to do that. And we laugh non stop. The cycling isn't serious. No lycra, cheapish bikes and just a lot of laughs.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
On the plus side, it would wind up Lindsay Hoyle.
People breathing winds up Hoyle. He gets wound up more often than a grandfather clock with a faulty spring.
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Become a Starmer/Macron ‘one in’ I would have thought
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
On the plus side, it would wind up Lindsay Hoyle.
People breathing winds up Hoyle. He gets wound up more often than a grandfather clock with a faulty spring.
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
As I saidvyesterday I would agree with that so long as we changed the law and made Directors and Senior executives of all the fracking companies personally responsible for the clean up when their company fails.
Penetrating the corporate veil has all sorts of issues
Bellows: The DOJ asked for the sensitive personal voter information — not just of me and Maine voters, but of every Secretary of State…
And also, just think for a moment—why do they want it? Because in the absence of a very good reason, you start to think, okay, well, how might they use it? And do we really want the Justice Department checking to see if you’re a Democrat or a Republican before they make a decision about who to investigate?
And so this idea that they’re going to collect all of this information on everyone in the country is really out of bounds and very dangerous. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1960121180247208102
I would have liked to have three (rather than two) kids, but:
My wife has a career. I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family. I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
In my experience, people with no kids wish they’d had them. People with one kid wish they’d had two. Those with two wish they’d had three or four
It’s not universal but it is very common. And yet birthrates are down almost everywhere?
Either people are lying (to themselves and the world) or something has gone very wrong in human societies
And what do their wives say ?
That's the thing. Despite the headline-hitting exceptions, most women want to be reasonably sure that the father of their children is going to stick around and pull his weight before they commit to having kids. Young men of this description seem to be a little short on the ground these days, hence the reluctance to start a family.
Whether or not fracking is viable or not should be left to the market.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
As I saidvyesterday I would agree with that so long as we changed the law and made Directors and Senior executives of all the fracking companies personally responsible for the clean up when their company fails.
Penetrating the corporate veil has all sorts of issues
Posting a bond to cover decommissioning costs?
For any normal oil field the operator has to have ringfenced sufficient money for the decommissioning well in advance of COP (ceasation of production). However, along with the very tough safety and environmental controls put on conventional oil exploration, the last Government* decided not to impose these rules on fracking.
I would have liked to have three (rather than two) kids, but:
My wife has a career. I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family. I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
In my experience, people with no kids wish they’d had them. People with one kid wish they’d had two. Those with two wish they’d had three or four
It’s not universal but it is very common. And yet birthrates are down almost everywhere?
Either people are lying (to themselves and the world) or something has gone very wrong in human societies
And what do their wives say ?
I’m talking about women as much as men
However it is a self selecting group of people over 45 or 50. So they’ve reached an age when the kids are probably grown or nearly grown. And they’ve forgotten all the stress and anxiety (and maybe the cost) of having kids. And life has got a bit quieter and so they think Ahhh more kids would have been nice
If they could go back in time would they ACTUALLY want more?
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
There were two schemes open until very recently for cases like this. I’m not sure it is the duty of the UK government to offer sanctuary to everyone else in the world at fear of persecution.
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Become a Starmer/Macron ‘one in’ I would have thought
The reason I ask is that without some reasonably accessible legal way of applying for asylum, you're going to need a hell of a lot of deterrence to keep people from attempting illegal means of entry. The deterrence required is a function of the accessibility of legal routes.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
Nature's way of easing the transition to AI/androids.
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Well, he did sit in Parliament, of course. And was required to answer questions in the chamber. Of the House of Lords.
In fact, the debates there are probably better informed, with a more formidable gallery of questioners. I remember Cameron being put under pressure during a debate by Ken Clarke during his stint a Foreign Secretary,
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think you can have high birth rates in two situations. We've seen in the past that it happens when women are powerless, effectively chattel. I believe that it might also happen when you have a pro-motherhood society that is centred around supporting women to have children (instead of regarding children as an annoying happenstance).
Most countries seem to be heading towards a situation in the middle, where women have enough power to say no to having children, but not enough power to make having children a thing they can say yes to in comfort and confidence.
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
I’ve acquired two hardy succulent plants that apparently thrive on london balconies in all weathers and require, at most, a watering about once a year
And I still wonder if I’ve taken on too much responsibility
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
Women increasingly can’t be doing with the disruption and burden of motherhood. Especially poorer ones, who are least likely to have the financial, familial and emotional support required in what ought to be the most societally respected of all roles
Not entirely true, otherwise most women would have no children rather than 1 or 2. It is true that most women are having fewer children, especially as far more have careers than used to be the case and more women work full time.
The main exception though is religion, Muslims and evangelical Christians have 3+ children globally on average while atheists have about 1-1.5
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
There have been plenty of academic studies that show that the clearest correlation is between women's education and birth rates.
And, of course, countries that don't educate their women, don't tend to give them much personal freedom. Interestingly, though, in countries where women are as well educated as men, but do not have a great deal of personal freedom (like Iran), it is the education that dominates: Iran's birthrate is now comfortably below replacement.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
On the plus side, it would wind up Lindsay Hoyle.
People breathing winds up Hoyle. He gets wound up more often than a grandfather clock with a faulty spring.
Yeah, he's not that great really. But after Bercow and Michael Martin at least someone who isn't an embarrassment to others or to himself.
Always thought it a shame that Sir George Young and Margaret Beckett didn't get the gig when they stood. Would've been much better speakers.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
Yes, you give people the choice of going to Rwanda or self-deporting to their home country. Don't give them the option of staying in the UK.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
In a century or so people will be reading/viewing stories about the small boats the way we used to read/watch stories about the American pioneers & their wagons. Same 'romantic' fight against danger and unwelcoming populace.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
They stopped trying to get to Australia. We have actual proof that this works. Australia did it
The boats stopped
Now of course we don’t have the good fortune of a remote unpeopled island near our shores but also far enough away - but the principle is established. This can be done and it has been shown that it works
Having pulled up Australian onshore migration figures I'm not sure its the picture you're painting...
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
In a century or so people will be reading/viewing stories about the small boats the way we used to read/watch stories about the American pioneers & their wagons. Same 'romantic' fight against danger and unwelcoming populace.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Right. Farage offered two items of leverage - revoke visas, and sanctions. Some countries will acquiesce of course, but the ones who won't will be the ones we need on board. Hence the need for "Albania or Rwanda" who will be delighted to agree to take "650,000 adults without children" also described as "fighting age males"
Why on earth would we need somewhere to take those sorts of numbers?
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
They said there are already 650k "adults without children" / "fighting age males" here today. Go forward 4 years and consider the number then.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
As I explicitly said, the 650k already here are a different and thorny problem. My suggestion was that we to try paying them to go away.
The chief challenge is to stop adding to their number. If the system is "everyone who arrives by small boat gets a free one way trip to Rwanda", with literally no exceptions, of course they will stop coming - it's pointless, unless you happen to particularly enjoy rubber dinghy sailing and flying cattle class to Kigali. The Australians proved this quite conclusively some time ago, when they killed off their problem with the boat people virtually overnight by a similar tactic.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level. Having 3 children or even 2 children on average is not a problem, having 1 on average as in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Japan, Italy, China, Thailand, UAE etc or even close to 0 as in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Hong Kong is
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Wilson did it in 1964 when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat.
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
On the plus side, it would wind up Lindsay Hoyle.
People breathing winds up Hoyle. He gets wound up more often than a grandfather clock with a faulty spring.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
Some deals is enough.
For those countries willing to take people back (and that we are willing to send them to), send them there.
For those unwilling, or where we are unwilling to send them to, have a Plan B. Eg like Rwanda.
Rwanda didn't work under the Tories due to issues on our side, not theirs.
That is workable, whether you like it or not. Bilateral agreements requiring only our agreement and the other parties agreement.
What's not required is a multilateral treaty requiring unanimity and the lowest common denominator.
We're importing our food, our energy and even our monarchy in the past. We've just moved onto importing our people as we don't allow the young the financial base to plan and have a family. As another PB'er said, we are here by choice.
This is a misframing
Yes uk birthrates are falling - but they are falling almost everywhere outside Africa (and drifting down even there). They are falling in religious countries and secular countries, empty countries and crowded countries, countries with cheap houses and countries with expensive houses
No one is entirely sure why
I think the answers pretty obvious to be honest but you get told off for saying it out loud. The places with very high birth rates correlate with there being very little personal independence for women. As the opportunity cost to women of having children rises, they have fewer children. Ultimately to the level where fertility rates fall well below replacement rate.
I believe survey evidence shows that women in England have on average one child fewer than they want.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level
Yes.
But if we'd been having this conversation in 2010, you'd have said* "every country in Africa has birthrates well above replacement". Now, in 2025, it's "most countries in Africa has birth rates well above replacement".
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Yes. I said that in my original comment
Central Asia remains a fascinating outlier
One theory is that they suffered terrible famines under Stalin (killing a large proportion of the population, even though we never hear about it) so this is some kind of unconscious desire to repopulate the nation
Plus moderate religion, strong family structures, and plenty of space?
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
I always find it ironic that those people who are most opposed to abortion, also seem to be most opposed to the government spending money on things that would support low income parents, like subsidised childcare.
It's not ironic when both views are rooted in misogyny
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Leader of the House of Commons?
That isn't a cabinet post, which is why it is held concurrently with the post of Lord Privy Seal or Lord President of the Council, which are cabinet posts and carry a salary.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
I seem to remember reading a very inexpensive and/or free Kindle story very much along those lines. The Ministry Of Love, I believe it was called. Use the resources of the state to tackle one of the most pressing voter problems, namely that of loneliness. It was pretty good, considering it was a freebie.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level
Yes.
But if we'd been having this conversation in 2010, you'd have said* "every country in Africa has birthrates well above replacement". Now, in 2025, it's "most countries in Africa has birth rates well above replacement".
The trend is not your friend here.
* And maybe did say
As I said as long as they stay at or above replacement level Africa has few problems, it will keep growing, fuelled by its large population of Muslims and evangelical Christians who tend to have lots of children.
It is most of the western world and Far East which has fertility rates well below replacement level now and is going to face ever higher tax bills to fund an ageing population and the health and care they need and is also going to see declining economic growth as their populations shrink and cultural tensions with immigrants filling the gap where automation can't
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
I’ve acquired two hardy succulent plants that apparently thrive on london balconies in all weathers and require, at most, a watering about once a year
And I still wonder if I’ve taken on too much responsibility
Bugger cactuses: just think about tortoises (or, for that matter, parrots). Definitely to be provided for in one's will.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
I’ve acquired two hardy succulent plants that apparently thrive on london balconies in all weathers and require, at most, a watering about once a year
And I still wonder if I’ve taken on too much responsibility
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
Which is still well above replacement level. Having 3 children or even 2 children on average is not a problem, having 1 on average as in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Japan, Italy, China, Thailand, UAE etc or even close to 0 as in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Hong Kong is
Canada also only at 1.33 fertility rate, we are still a bit higher at 1.54
In retrospect we should have let Covid rip, snuffing out the extremely old and extremely fat. Thus freeing up loads of housing for young people to have babies, rebalancing the age structure of the nation, taking a huge weight off the NHS, sparing us all the horrors of lockdown; and saving £200 billion
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
My wife is currently in Kenya visiting her brother who works down there. In the past we have been involved with medical and educational work in both Kenya and Uganda (schemes set up by evil geologists like me who were trying to support local clinics and schools). I have to say from her latest reports visiting some parts of Nairobi that I am not sure 3 or even 4.5 is replacement level for those areas. Her guide a few days ago was a former street gang member who was one of 6 kids. The only one surviving. 4 brothers and a sister all died before reaching adulthood.
In retrospect we should have let Covid rip, snuffing out the extremely old and extremely fat. Thus freeing up loads of housing for young people to have babies, rebalancing the age structure of the nation, taking a huge weight off the NHS, sparing us all the horrors of lockdown; and saving £200 billion
Derrrr
So, no oyster bars but plenty of free booze en route to this mysterious 'Tuscany of Central Europe' you haven't identified for us yet.
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Is it the Lord Chief Justice?
That's not a cabinet post, and isn't held by a member of the Commons.
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Become a Starmer/Macron ‘one in’ I would have thought
The reason I ask is that without some reasonably accessible legal way of applying for asylum, you're going to need a hell of a lot of deterrence to keep people from attempting illegal means of entry. The deterrence required is a function of the accessibility of legal routes.
The Times is reporting that people who wish to claim asylum via official channels in France are finding it impossible and so taking their chances on the boats.
Calais migrants board boats as one in, one out scheme goes silent
What is the legal alternative to a small boat for, say, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who is being persecuted by his government and wishes to apply for asylum in the UK (because he speaks a bit of English, and has an uncle over here)?
Become a Starmer/Macron ‘one in’ I would have thought
The reason I ask is that without some reasonably accessible legal way of applying for asylum, you're going to need a hell of a lot of deterrence to keep people from attempting illegal means of entry. The deterrence required is a function of the accessibility of legal routes.
The Times is reporting that people who wish to claim asylum via official channels in France are finding it impossible and so taking their chances on the boats.
Calais migrants board boats as one in, one out scheme goes silent
Is it still the case that the British are saying the only place you can claim asylum is at the Embassy in Paris? I remember this being an issue a few years ago.
In retrospect we should have let Covid rip, snuffing out the extremely old and extremely fat. Thus freeing up loads of housing for young people to have babies, rebalancing the age structure of the nation, taking a huge weight off the NHS, sparing us all the horrors of lockdown; and saving £200 billion
Derrrr
So, no oyster bars but plenty of free booze en route to this mysterious 'Tuscany of Central Europe' you haven't identified for us yet.
One small glass of Viognier
I’m much more abstemious these days
I’m quite serious about “letting covid rip”. The price we have paid for lockdowns is insane in retrospect. The psychological damage. The enormous debt. The ongoing trauma
If we could have avoided health service meltdown, perhaps we should have let Covid take its course. It’s not obvious to me that we chose the best path
OK this is interesting. Farage admitting that the ECHR is embedded into the Good Friday Agreement and that the required renegotiation of that won't be "quick". Does that mean that we can't do any of this without it? Because unless we quit ECHR and the UN treaties none of this is legal.
No, Parliament is sovereign.
Just quit the ECHR and then renegotiate the GFA as per the new circumstances.
The GFA has been tweaked many times already. If it were Ireland wanting to quit they wouldn't let the tail wag the dog and neither should we.
When Lord Blumkett and others in Labour want to leave the ECHR then consensus appears to be broadening
Those who do not want Farage need to realise the status quo is only going to increase that likelihood
I advocate changing much of the status quo, so I don't care much for the "we can't do x" arguments. We can, the valid question is whether we should and if so, how?
The simple truth is that the populist right spin a picture that only Britain is under siege by "fighting age men". Incorrect. We get fewer than many of our neighbours. There is no need for us to abrogate agreements that many now look to amend, and any "just send them home" plan by definition needs a counterparty to agree to receive them. As Farage stated.
So the solution is international cooperation, not WE ARE BRITAIN WE MAKE THE RULES displays.
We are sovereign, we absolutely can make the rules.
If people want to cooperate, great.
If people don't, that's fine too.
It isn't fine too when you are trying to land RAF planes full of people into their sovereign territory.
They are sovereign and absolutely can make their own rules...
I have no doubt that deals will be done. Some deals. A load of people will have (a) no paperwork and (b) no country willing to take them as they are "fighting age males"
We have more chance of doing deals if we don't act like a limp-dicked beta male whining on about how we absolutely get to make the rules dictating to foreigners what happens in their country.
I pointed out last week that Bangladesh could revoke citizenship on every citizen who arrives in the UK and there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about removing them. And when pressed their answer would be you showed us how to do it, we are just implementing it
Bangladesh might not like the UK putting in place a quota of zero for their goods and services. To impose a suspension on all new visas. To seize all assets held in the uk by the Bangladeshi state or its state officials.
We could do all sorts of things. Generally, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. International cooperation works better than throwing your weight around, as the US economy is finding out.
Sunak did a bilateral deal with Albania that was very successful in reducing the number of Albanians claiming asylum in the UK and speeding up the return of Albanians to Albania. That's a good model. This chest-beating nonsense from Farage and some posters here is not a good model.
Yes indeed. I merely point out that if Bangladesh tried throwing piss in our eyes as was suggested, we could throw it back ten fold. The uk is ~10% of their exports. And that’s without getting to the more spicy actions we could take in terms of security cooperation.
There’s an awful defeatism to the UK political conversation, nothing can be done because it’s too hard. The uk remains a preeminent economic, cultural and security power. It just needs a government with the will to judiciously deploy that power to achieve its goals.
The key word there is *judiciously* - there are no simple, quick, easy solutions. I suspect that much of the proposal made earlier was aimed at the ill-informed to reassure them that "we will act" - I did see a few signs of Reform actually starting to think detail as well as that will sink them otherwise.
I said the same thing to LibDem colleagues a month ago after I had a conversation with Reform activists - they are serious about power, even if they are saying unserious things to get it.
Yes agreed. As I mentioned recently, I have heard of them approaching very high calibre people from outside of politics to help form the detail in the background, with the implicit appeal being “help us in the national interest”. The question remains what the foreground looks like. At some point Farage needs to tell us who his chancellor would be. Can he attract a serious person from business? Or are we stuck with Tice?
Here is the problem. In today's politics its quite easy to envisage people shifting allegiance. And not just for narrow opportunist reasons - because they can see opportunities to get things done which can't be otherwise.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
Cabinet ministers not sitting in Parliament seems more like a Trumpian attempt to avoid oversight than anything else.
Did we not have that in the last Parliament with David Cameron as Foreign Secretary?
Cameron was in Parliament. Whether we should have a House of Lords is a question for another day, but he was in Parliament.
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
The second is Lord Chancellor. The first I don't know.
Is it the Lord Chief Justice?
That's not a cabinet post, and isn't held by a member of the Commons.
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
You said: "Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?"
Lord Chief Justice is an Office. And it cannot be held by a member of the Lords.
You'll excuse my confusion caused by me reading what you wrote.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
My wife is currently in Kenya visiting her brother who works down there. In the past we have been involved with medical and educational work in both Kenya and Uganda (schemes set up by evil geologists like me who were trying to support local clinics and schools). I have to say from her latest reports visiting some parts of Nairobi that I am not sure 3 or even 4.5 is replacement level for those areas. Her guide a few days ago was a former street gang member who was one of 6 kids. The only one surviving. 4 brothers and a sister all died before reaching adulthood.
Given Kenya's population still rose by 3 million from 2019 to 2024 even despite the higher mortality rate they face much less of a problem than most of the West and Far East demographically
Comments
I base my comments on reality. Even when I wish it were otherwise.You base yours on nothing more than wishful thinking and ignorance and then get upset when this is pointed out to you by those of us who actually understand the facts.
Strangely, they don’t want to pay to do a ton of work - which is the effective situation in many countries.
The UK’s ban on it is all part and parcel of its “closed for business” brand that it has been building since 2016.
Provided we send 100% of arrivals, and providing that it's impossible to end up in the UK after a successful claim (ie winning your claim only gets you the right to stay somewhere safe, like where we've already sent you, not the right to come to the UK) we probably only need to send a few hundred to Rwanda/Albania/Accenscion to show we're serious and the rest of them will get the idea.
The critical thing is that we have to make it utterly impossible to ever be allowed to live in the UK having entered on a small boat - if there is *any* chance of that, they will keep coming.
The above is all about stopping new arrivals.
What we do with the tens of thousands already here and in limbo is a more thorny problem. I wonder how much cash we could have to give them in return for an agreement they would go home and could never re-enter the UK. I suspect most of them would settle for less than they cost us a year in hotels alone. Obviously that's a scheme that only works if we've already blocked off the flow of new entrants (otherwise it's just going to be "pass go, collect £200" ad-infinitum).
And the women are certainly not Islamically oppressed. The burqa is banned and imams are licensed. Political Islam js strictly controlled, women are completely equal, and you probably see more hijabs in london than Astana
A blanket ban is simply “computer says no”.
Which is what the market basically hears everytime it thinks about the British economy these days.
No, this is my annual cycle trip in France. I always pick somewhere flat, usually following rivers or canals or old railway lines or just flat areas, usually on Greenways. This one is the Canal du Midi, which has been on the agenda for sometime. Last year was the Loire, before that I have done Poitier to the coast and back, North Brittany to South Brittany and back, Normandy and Bordeaux to Biarritz. We only have bikes and it is all self organised and carrying all our stuff so we need to keep to a route because we can only do so much in a day. We are also doing another canal down to Narbonne and as you know we will be staying in the prison at Beziers.
PS not criticising your posts, just pointing out the irony, but you know that anyway. It is your way of having fun with us.
*I know there's meant to be sexual equality these days, but I'm still not really seeing it tbh. Most women in relationships I see still do most of the childcare.
I am a Liberal Democrat these days, and my politics are very different to Farage's. But there is something refreshing about the "why do we have to do it like this?" approach to politics. So I can see a lot of high calibre people being interested.
Here is the big problem. So far the big beasts attracted to Reform have been bonkers, ex-Tories, or bonkers ex-Tories. Many of the louder supporters are "get the darkies out" more than "I want to reform the way that our welfare state functions".
Amongst the more interesting ideas Farage has is that cabinet ministers can be appointed without sitting in parliament. There is no constitutional impediment to this - ministers do not sit in parliament for at least a month every electoral cycle. So yes, finding a Big Beast is clearly on his radar. I could be unkind and observe that so many of his new MPs are likely to be lightweight at best, but I think his proposal has already done that...!
My wife has a career.
I’m too old now, having prioritised my own job and wealth building in my 20s before starting a family.
I can’t afford to house or (privately) educate a third in Manhattan.
https://www.mercatornet.com/asia_s_demographic_outliers_kazakhstan
“Over the past several decades, much of Asia, from Singapore to Seoul, has been experiencing a demographic implosion of unsettling proportions – just look at Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Kazakhstan and its Central Asia neighbors, meanwhile, stand out as exceptions to the regional norm.
“Asian states jittery about their below-replacement birth rates – less than 2.1 births on average per woman – might learn something from Kazakhstan’s recent experience.”
I’m off on assignment right now. To the “Tuscany of Central Europe”
The Saj! How could I forget. He was another one. There was sustained sniggering in my circles when he got the gig.
There is no difference between detaining an illegal off the street and detaining them off a boat if they are going into Stalag Luft 30p and then for deportation. The challenge is that it isn't easy sending people away - the receiving country has to accept them.
As for "just send a few away and they stop coming", they won't. "Albania and Rwanda" he said. Great. So depart Tirana westwards or Kigali northwards and start again. No system is bullet-proof, and people always believe they can succeed even if others fail.
There's plenty of room within the constraints of both liberal democracy and the rule of law for quite radical change.
But it requires someone both motivated, and with more than just the vaguest clue of how to go about it.
*The compulsory purchase of building land at fixed prices, which idea they toyed with, is an excellent example.
The boats stopped
Now of course we don’t have the good fortune of a remote unpeopled island near our shores but also far enough away - but the principle is established. This can be done and it has been shown that it works
What does 2200kW get you?
a new speed YANGWANG record
472.41 km/h
Rimac Nevera (2022) – 412 km/h [previous BEV record]
https://x.com/electricfelix/status/1960251229222629805
It’s not universal but it is very common. And yet birthrates are down almost everywhere?
Either people are lying (to themselves and the world) or something has gone very wrong in human societies
Home renounced his peerage and was out of Parliament for a month fighting a by-election.
Those are the only examples I know of of cabinet ministers who were not in Parliament other than for a general election since the wartime 'appoint whoever you need and get them in however you can' arrangements expired in June 1945.
What is the Tuscany of Central Europe?
Bellows: The DOJ asked for the sensitive personal voter information — not just of me and Maine voters, but of every Secretary of State…
And also, just think for a moment—why do they want it? Because in the absence of a very good reason, you start to think, okay, well, how might they use it? And do we really want the Justice Department checking to see if you’re a Democrat or a Republican before they make a decision about who to investigate?
And so this idea that they’re going to collect all of this information on everyone in the country is really out of bounds and very dangerous.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1960121180247208102
*Or rather one of the previous Tory versions.
However it is a self selecting group of people over 45 or 50. So they’ve reached an age when the kids are probably grown or nearly grown. And they’ve forgotten all the stress and anxiety (and maybe the cost) of having kids. And life has got a bit quieter and so they think Ahhh more kids would have been nice
If they could go back in time would they ACTUALLY want more?
Fun Fact - there is one office that cannot, under current rules, be held by a member of the Lords. Does anyone know what it is?
(Until 2005 there was also one that *had* to be held by a peer, although Blair changed it - that would give a clue.)
In total, that's seven other lives I bear some responsibility for. If I could do it all again, I would be responsible for no more than two of the seven. And I'm not going to be drawn on which two.
Cats can look after themselves.
But the dogs, now...
In fact, the debates there are probably better informed, with a more formidable gallery of questioners. I remember Cameron being put under pressure during a debate by Ken Clarke during his stint a Foreign Secretary,
Most countries seem to be heading towards a situation in the middle, where women have enough power to say no to having children, but not enough power to make having children a thing they can say yes to in comfort and confidence.
You are right - your role as a personal servant to your two cats must be placed above all other obligations
And I still wonder if I’ve taken on too much responsibility
The main exception though is religion, Muslims and evangelical Christians have 3+ children globally on average while atheists have about 1-1.5
And, of course, countries that don't educate their women, don't tend to give them much personal freedom. Interestingly, though, in countries where women are as well educated as men, but do not have a great deal of personal freedom (like Iran), it is the education that dominates: Iran's birthrate is now comfortably below replacement.
Always thought it a shame that Sir George Young and Margaret Beckett didn't get the gig when they stood. Would've been much better speakers.
A key factor seems to be in not finding a suitable and willing man to act as the father before it's too late. The government should put money into a match-making website - all commercial dating apps have an interest in you failing to find someone, and to continue to use the app to keep looking.
I'm only half-joking.
Birthrates are falling in Africa. They're just starting at a much higher level than elsewhere. Tunisia has already dipped below replacement. Morocco and South Africa are only just above. Places like Kenya were at 4.5 not that long ago, and are now at a smidgen over 3.
The chief challenge is to stop adding to their number. If the system is "everyone who arrives by small boat gets a free one way trip to Rwanda", with literally no exceptions, of course they will stop coming - it's pointless, unless you happen to particularly enjoy rubber dinghy sailing and flying cattle class to Kigali. The Australians proved this quite conclusively some time ago, when they killed off their problem with the boat people virtually overnight by a similar tactic.
But if we'd been having this conversation in 2010, you'd have said* "every country in Africa has birthrates well above replacement". Now, in 2025, it's "most countries in Africa has birth rates well above replacement".
The trend is not your friend here.
* And maybe did say
Central Asia remains a fascinating outlier
One theory is that they suffered terrible famines under Stalin (killing a large proportion of the population, even though we never hear about it) so this is some kind of unconscious desire to repopulate the nation
Plus moderate religion, strong family structures, and plenty of space?
The women are as educated as the men
It is most of the western world and Far East which has fertility rates well below replacement level now and is going to face ever higher tax bills to fund an ageing population and the health and care they need and is also going to see declining economic growth as their populations shrink and cultural tensions with immigrants filling the gap where automation can't
And the clue is in your answer.
Derrrr
Edit - although due to a curious legal technicality, the Lord Chief Justice would exercise this office if it were vacant for more than 24 hours.
Calais migrants board boats as one in, one out scheme goes silent
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cb8bbb9a-ccfc-45df-bd2b-c48abecd5cda?shareToken=484cb6114b8478e9d38fb11f66c4f3c9
I’m much more abstemious these days
I’m quite serious about “letting covid rip”. The price we have paid for lockdowns is insane in retrospect. The psychological damage. The enormous debt. The ongoing trauma
If we could have avoided health service meltdown, perhaps we should have let Covid take its course. It’s not obvious to me that we chose the best path
Lord Chief Justice is an Office. And it cannot be held by a member of the Lords.
You'll excuse my confusion caused by me reading what you wrote.