Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Maybe let's not elect Prime Ministers from whom things so often run away...
Ok, but 96000 is a lot less than one million.
(There are still more EU citizens in Britain than in June 2016 per your reference.)
96,000 is a lot less than one million, yes. Johnson sold the voters Brexit and a points-based system with a wink and a nod that these would decrease immigration. His Government then oversaw record high immigration. Maybe he's a liar, maybe he's incompetent, maybe it's both.
Do you know what I think? Let's not elect Johnson or anyone like Johnson again. For example, which party leader is most like Boris Johnson today? Puts forward a jovial image, as if he'd be fun to have a pint with, says he's straight talking? Let's not vote for him.
Let's not. But can we also not have Corbyn as the alternative?
I don't think the last 7 days suggests there is any chance of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
The movie was 28 days though, and they have twists. Very scary twists.
I am disappointed not one of you has acknowledged my brilliance with the headline on this.
Clearly the Dunning-Kruger test pun is too subtle for you all.
Nah, I saw it, but I was worried there was a deeper meaning I had missed, and I didn't want to appear overconfident on the basis of a small amount of knowledge.
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
PB is extremely pro immigration compared to the general population; this is a site for people who like to tell others what they think, and how good does it feel to say repeatedly how much you welcome everyone and don't want to be nasty, while sneering at those who disagree?
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Yes. We had control of our migration. We had a govt who flooded the country with min wage migrants to wipe old people’s buttholes. But we made that choice as a govt
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
PB is extremely pro immigration compared to the general population; this is a site for people who like to tell others what they think, and how good does it feel to say repeatedly how much you welcome everyone and don't want to be nasty, while sneering at those who disagree?
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Yes. We had control of our migration. We had a govt who flooded the country with min wage migrants to wipe old people’s buttholes. But we made that choice as a govt
We made no such choice. It was never put forward for election as a policy. Not were we told it was happening.
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
PB is extremely pro immigration compared to the general population; this is a site for people who like to tell others what they think, and how good does it feel to say repeatedly how much you welcome everyone and don't want to be nasty, while sneering at those who disagree?
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Ironic that the tradesmen/tradesman's daughters hate Starmer so passionately when he is a tradesman's son. And Cameron, Miliband, Johnson and so on were very clearly not.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
If you want people to integrate then you need to give them some certainty over their status. Farage's proposals are a recipe from precisely the kind of immigration - working age single men, sending all their money home, failing to integrate - that he claims not to want. He's also based the whole plan on some bogus numbers that the think-tank who came up with them are now disowning. The UK's fiscal hole is not down to immigrants, and Farage's proposals, apart from being divisive and unfair, will only make the fiscal outlook worse.
I agree with all of that. But the perception that the established parties simply cannot be trusted to reflect or respect the wishes of the British people has received another boost.
Do the British people really want to round up families who have been given the right to live here and throw them out of the country? I don't think that is the majority view. If I'm wrong then I'll be going too.
Reform don't need to appeal to a majority, just 30-35% of those who will actually turn up and vote. So far, they are achieving this. The question is whether today's rightward lurch will turn off more current supporters than new supporters it attracts.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
I still believe in treating all foreigners equally, rather than having one rule for europeans. Boris fucking up and letting in 1m a year instead of 200k a year has no bearing on that principle.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
Dare I suggest that the discussion on legal immigration, as opposed to asylum, would be a lot less febrile if housebuilding and infrastructure development had kept up with population over the past quarter century.
The issue is seen through the lens of housing being unaffordable, and public services that appear to be in many places broken as far as the British population is concerned.
We should definitely build more houses. I think nearly everyone on PB thinks that.
Nearly everyone on PB, but nearly no-one in government.
There’s plenty that government could do legislatively on housing, but this lot come across just as flat-footed as the last lot.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Yes. We had control of our migration. We had a govt who flooded the country with min wage migrants to wipe old people’s buttholes. But we made that choice as a govt
We made no such choice. It was never put forward for election as a policy. Not were we told it was happening.
That applies to many things govts do. Keep voting to enable this system
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
PB is extremely pro immigration compared to the general population; this is a site for people who like to tell others what they think, and how good does it feel to say repeatedly how much you welcome everyone and don't want to be nasty, while sneering at those who disagree?
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Ironic that the tradesmen/tradesman's daughters hate Starmer so passionately when he is a tradesman's son. And Cameron, Miliband, Johnson and so on were very clearly not.
I don’t see why that is ironic really. They don’t seem to like other tradesmen much
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Unfortunately that’s before Farage and co started to demonise legal migrants . Unless Farage is called out those percentages will change.
Try asking the question after stating the financial burden the min wage earners will be over their life especially when they bring economically inactive dependents
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Imagine you’ve been trying as a low skilled non European to try and escape your homeland.
Suddenly a European country opens up their borders and offers work, you would be doing everything you can to get there asap which is why we went from 0 to 1 million so quickly
The people who came here are not predominantly low skilled, even if some of them may be doing relatively low paid jobs here. They are mostly middle class educated people from countries that are better at educating people than creating well paid jobs. So they come here as well as places like Australia and Canada and the UAE in search of opportunity. Many will be studying and working here at the same time. These are not the illiterate Kashmiri or Silheti villagers coming to work in factories in the 1960s. They are not escaping grinding poverty at home, just a lack of decent employment opportunities. Many will be planning to return home. Indeed, once they have some valuable overseas experience and qualifications their home country may well be a more attractive destination than the UK, which is cold and dark and full of grumpy old racists.
https://electrek.co/2025/09/22/byd-unveils-tesla-megapack-competitor-twice-capacity/ ..Earlier this month, Tesla unveiled its next-generation Megapack, a dominant player in large-scale energy storage for some time. The new Megapack 3 increases the energy capacity of the container-side system from 3.9 MWh to 5 MWh. At the same time, Tesla unveiled the Megablock, which consists of 4 Megapacks combined with a megavolt transformer and switchgear. Now, BYD has launched a new competing product called ‘HaoHan’. In its regular configuration, the system has a capacity of 14.5 MWh, almost 3 times Tesla’s Megapack, and in a 20-ft container configuration, it has a 10 MWh capacity. The system has a Vcts (Volume Ratio of Cell to System) of 52.1%, which BYD claims is the world’s highest. BYD also claims to have greatly simplified its system while increasing reliability with a “70% reduction in system failure” and “70% reduction in maintenance cost.” HaoHan is using BYD’s proprietary 2,710 Ah Blade Battery cell – the largest used in stationary storage. It enables a much higher volumetric energy density, which the company claims results in deploying GWh projects with about half the number of battery systems. Overall, BYD claims that energy project costs will be reduced by 21.7% thanks to the new HaoHan. Not unlike Tesla with the Megablock, BYD also unveiled new large-scale power electronics to go along with the new battery system. GC Flux is BYD’s new grid-forming inverter solution, which can scale from 2.5 to 10 MW. According to BYD, the inverter delivers about 38% more performance than the industry average and achieves a maximum power density of 1,474 kW/㎡—roughly 130% higher than typical market values. It also offers an overload capacity of up to three times its rated output for 10 seconds, with peak efficiency reaching 99.35%. The GC Flux PCS is equipped with advanced grid-forming features tailored for today’s energy systems. It can regulate voltage and frequency in real-time, enabling more invert-based power to a grid while reducing the risk of blackouts. The system provides active inertia response for up to 25 seconds, wide-band damping across the 1–1500 Hz range, and ultra-fast voltage and frequency regulation in under 100 milliseconds. These capabilities are essential for maintaining stability, particularly in hybrid or renewable-heavy grids that demand seamless transitions between grid-connected and islanded operation...
Last bit highlighted for LuckyGuy.
Musical chair type lottery it seems. I have a small investment in one of the minor players. And the whole show could come crashing down if the fusion guys ever get it sorted.
Somebody will crack fusion some day.
Possibly. Though it's quite likely that (earthbound) fusion would still be more expensive per kWh than solar - and possibly even for solar PLUS battery storage.
Reform are a cancer on the UK . After they’ve finished rounding up legal migrants and the angry mob still think their life is crap they’ll move onto the next group to use as scapegoats.
That's the problem with leaving the EU, the easiest thing to blame (the EU) no longer existed (as an excuse) so they could no longer hide their latent racism...
Can we just take the daft 'hateful racist' tag as read for anyone who suggests a serious policy about anything? I can feel brain cells ebbing away as I read.
Remember that Farage’s immigration Brexit poster was that Turks would be allowed to come here. He knows his audience
As with almost all remainers, you're confusing politics with your identity. If you are an upstanding, educated, open-minded person, you must be pro-EU. But the EU is a political construct, a nascent state and an issuer of laws. When you insist on seeing it as an core part of your identity, you open yourself to massive abuse, because you can never turn away from it - to do so would be to depart from righteousness.
That's the real difference between leavers and remainers. Leavers calculated the costs and benefits, remainers thought of their identity.
Laughable nonsense.
I would guess that well over half of both sets of voters cast their ballot on an identitarian basis.
And the theory that Brexiteers are somehow a more rational bunch is ... classic Lucky.
But notice how you immediately went back to identity. You didn't say 'voting more rationally, you said 'a more rational bunch'. Being pro-EU is a badge of your sober, grown up rationality - 'We know a little more about such things than the average Sun reader'. But you don't. The basis of a remain disposition has always been emotional not rational. That's why it quickly departs from facts when arguing with Remainers - it almost immediately gets personal. Or it gets vague and rhetorical "cutting off relations with our biggest trading partner".
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
I still believe in treating all foreigners equally, rather than having one rule for europeans. Boris fucking up and letting in 1m a year instead of 200k a year has no bearing on that principle.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
Dare I suggest that the discussion on legal immigration, as opposed to asylum, would be a lot less febrile if housebuilding and infrastructure development had kept up with population over the past quarter century.
The issue is seen through the lens of housing being unaffordable, and public services that appear to be in many places broken as far as the British population is concerned.
We should definitely build more houses. I think nearly everyone on PB thinks that.
Reform are a cancer on the UK . After they’ve finished rounding up legal migrants and the angry mob still think their life is crap they’ll move onto the next group to use as scapegoats.
That's the problem with leaving the EU, the easiest thing to blame (the EU) no longer existed (as an excuse) so they could no longer hide their latent racism...
Can we just take the daft 'hateful racist' tag as read for anyone who suggests a serious policy about anything? I can feel brain cells ebbing away as I read.
Remember that Farage’s immigration Brexit poster was that Turks would be allowed to come here. He knows his audience
As with almost all remainers, you're confusing politics with your identity. If you are an upstanding, educated, open-minded person, you must be pro-EU. But the EU is a political construct, a nascent state and an issuer of laws. When you insist on seeing it as an core part of your identity, you open yourself to massive abuse, because you can never turn away from it - to do so would be to depart from righteousness.
That's the real difference between leavers and remainers. Leavers calculated the costs and benefits, remainers thought of their identity.
Laughable nonsense.
I would guess that well over half of both sets of voters cast their ballot on an identitarian basis.
And the theory that Brexiteers are somehow a more rational bunch is ... classic Lucky.
But notice how you immediately went back to identity. You didn't say 'voting more rationally, you said 'a more rational bunch'. Being pro-EU is a badge of your sober, grown up rationality - 'We know a little more about such things than the average Sun reader'. But you don't. The basis of a remain disposition has always been emotional not rational. That's why it quickly departs from facts when arguing with Remainers - it almost immediately gets personal. Or it gets vague and rhetorical "cutting off relations with our biggest trading partner".
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on your nose. You think climate change is a fake conspiracy.
Argentina is a systemically important U.S. ally in Latin America, and the @USTreasury stands ready to do what is needed within its mandate to support Argentina.
Reform are a cancer on the UK . After they’ve finished rounding up legal migrants and the angry mob still think their life is crap they’ll move onto the next group to use as scapegoats.
That's the problem with leaving the EU, the easiest thing to blame (the EU) no longer existed (as an excuse) so they could no longer hide their latent racism...
Can we just take the daft 'hateful racist' tag as read for anyone who suggests a serious policy about anything? I can feel brain cells ebbing away as I read.
Remember that Farage’s immigration Brexit poster was that Turks would be allowed to come here. He knows his audience
As with almost all remainers, you're confusing politics with your identity. If you are an upstanding, educated, open-minded person, you must be pro-EU. But the EU is a political construct, a nascent state and an issuer of laws. When you insist on seeing it as an core part of your identity, you open yourself to massive abuse, because you can never turn away from it - to do so would be to depart from righteousness.
That's the real difference between leavers and remainers. Leavers calculated the costs and benefits, remainers thought of their identity.
Laughable nonsense.
I would guess that well over half of both sets of voters cast their ballot on an identitarian basis.
And the theory that Brexiteers are somehow a more rational bunch is ... classic Lucky.
But notice how you immediately went back to identity. You didn't say 'voting more rationally, you said 'a more rational bunch'. Being pro-EU is a badge of your sober, grown up rationality - 'We know a little more about such things than the average Sun reader'. But you don't. The basis of a remain disposition has always been emotional not rational. That's why it quickly departs from facts when arguing with Remainers - it almost immediately gets personal. Or it gets vague and rhetorical "cutting off relations with our biggest trading partner".
Reread what I actually said, which isn't how you characterise it. It's only you who was claiming superior "rationality" for the people on your side of the argument. I made no such claim - just ridiculed your evidence free assertion.
I've got a radical idea - if you are a British taxpayer you get equal treatment with other British taxpayers.
Yes, even the ones with a funny name and brown skin.
You want to be the only country in the world allowing non-citizens to vote in national elections?
We already are that country: Irish citizens have been allowed to live and vote here for a long time. Commonwealth citizens also have (had?) the right to vote in UK elections.
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
There is also an "it's popular until it's real" aspect to a lot of this deportation stuff.
Deport the mother of your child's friend at school who is married to a British national? Deport your parents' long-standing care worker who no longer meets the minimum income threshold? Outrageous.
So I expect this will be popular with a sufficiently large part of the electorate until it comes into contact with reality.
We are now going to find out how popular the Four Star Party is. The knuckle draggers and plastic patriots will of course cheer on sending "foreigners" home, especially ones who are "British". Go look on X, there's a load of posts from patriots saying anyone who isn't white isn't British.
For everyone else? I expect we are going to be fed endless propaganda to demonise the people targeted for deportation. How Dare They live here taking our jobs / benefits / women etc
We live in repellent political times.
Indeed, the "White British are going to take over" stuff is jus dog-whistling to put down anyone who is different.
This directly affects me, my family and friends. I guess it directly affects many of the posters on here, including some who are spreading it.
Let's go through the looking glass. The fukers get elected and there is a voluntary exodus as people flee. Others are paid to leave*
Who will do the jobs they leave? It won't be these knuckle-dragging fucks. So we have swathes of jobs we can't fill, a big drop in tax revenues and money circulating which in turn closes businesses and puts more people out of work.
*Here's money to "go home" was the policy of the BNP, who also wanted all the immigrants out. One of my Brother in Laws supported them and I asked if he - as a second generation migrant - planned to repatriate himself to Spain or Ireland
The reason that people in the UK won't do those jobs is that the rate of pay is very, very low.
Which is why, despite the Boriswave etc, barely any change happened in the care sector ( "bottom wiping" ).
The migrants who'd been extorted by the care home bosses, into paying thousands for their visas, didn't want to work for barely minimum wage. Surprise!
I thought all the low paid got UC and other sorts of benefits, certainly that is what is constantly stated on here.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
OKC that sounds like garbage to me. I know someone who has bad back and gets whatever allowance etc, opted for motability car and his wife drives it all the time , he never drives it. they take an amount off the benefits but everything is covered , no bills for the car whatsoever.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
OKC that sounds like garbage to me. I know someone who has bad back and gets whatever allowance etc, opted for motability car and his wife drives it all the time , he never drives it. they take an amount off the benefits but everything is covered , no bills for the car whatsoever.
OKC Ignore answered much better elsewhere as it seems to begin during working age
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Comments
It's been a success unparalleled in history.
It's why we live in a Paradise.
It was never put forward for election as a policy.
Not were we told it was happening.
There’s plenty that government could do legislatively on housing, but this lot come across just as flat-footed as the last lot.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1970075336973893951?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
NEW THREAD
Though it's quite likely that (earthbound) fusion would still be more expensive per kWh than solar - and possibly even for solar PLUS battery storage.
Argentina is a systemically important U.S. ally in Latin America, and the @USTreasury stands ready to do what is needed within its mandate to support Argentina.
All options for stabilization are on the table.
https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/1970107351912075454
Farage's speech was all about the dependants on benefits, the ones who don't work, and are a net fiscal drag
So it's not a direct read-across
It's only you who was claiming superior "rationality" for the people on your side of the argument. I made no such claim - just ridiculed your evidence free assertion.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
https://lookingforgrowth.uk/campaigns/defend-fun/
It is Natural England's fault.