Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
"He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament"
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If ever there was a more pointless exercise in "democracy" it was that "a free kick of Bishop Brennan up the arse" election.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand???
Winning that EU election terrified the Tories into promising a referendum on EU membership, if they won the subsequent UK general election. The Tories won the UK election. So Cameron had to call the referendum which Farage had forced. Et voila
Bugger off did it.
For one thing, it was under Theresa May. You know, the PM who took over AFTER Cameron had resigned because of the Referendum.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand timelines? Muppet.
If this quote is accurate it makes the 'equal pay' cases even more bizarre. Presumably a small part of the wider case, but the fundamental position just seems silly on its face.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
A great deal of this is true. It is possible to take issue with whether the forces leading to the 2016 referendum were significantly within the Tory party - remember Major and Maastricht and all that - rather than only Farage, but a lot of what you say is true.
But the term 'successful' still has difficulties. It seems to me that a sensible view of Farage is that success must involve successfully making the UK much more like the place he ideologically wants it to be. Brexit is necessary for this but not sufficient. For example, Brexit was followed by the Boriswave, a massive opposite to Farage's wishes in migration. Since Brexit the UK has not done brilliantly well. None of that is down to Farage - of course.
He is clearly the most significant and influential politician of the 21st century so far. The competition has been dire but it's true. For success he has to run things and shape the nation his way. He may do so yet, but I doubt it.
Also, for success, the vision has to be clear. His current party is riddled with contradictions. For success in his own terms, it seems to me, he must make it to PM, and find a way forward which makes the UK a significantly better place, keep the voters of Clacton, who will be post WWII social democrats to a man, onside, deal with the issues of tax, spend, debt and deficit, and satisfy the buccaneer, libertarian urge without Trump, Putin and Xi being his best friends, make friends with and comprehend three million Muslims in the UK and a few other things.
That would be success, and the achievement would be truly great. And he will have to do it without my vote.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
"He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament"
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If ever there was a more pointless exercise in "democracy" it was that "a free kick of Bishop Brennan up the arse" election.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand???
Winning that EU election terrified the Tories into promising a referendum on EU membership, if they won the subsequent UK general election. The Tories won the UK election. So Cameron had to call the referendum which Farage had forced. Et voila
Bugger off did it.
For one thing, it was under Theresa May. You know, the PM who took over AFTER Cameron had resigned because of the Referendum.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand timelines? Muppet.
"Elections watchdog considers looking into £5m gift to Farage"
"The elections watchdog for England and Wales has said it is considering whether to look into the £5m given to Nigel Farage before the last general election.
"Reform UK mega donor Christopher Harborne gave the money to Farage in early 2024.
"In the correspondence, seen by the BBC, the Conservatives suggested that Farage should "have declared the donation to the Electoral Commission at the time as a regulated donee".
"Reform UK said the money was a gift, and that it was given at a time when the now-Reform leader had not yet committed to standing as an MP.
"In its response to the Conservative Party, the Commission confirmed "we are aware of this matter and are considering it under our regulatory remit. We will consider all the available relevant information and recommend what, if any, next steps the Commission will take."
"The watchdog promised to reply to the Conservatives no later than 12 May, which comes after next week's elections in Scotland and Wales, and local elections in many parts of England."
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
I’ll not rise to the pathetic last sentence but, again, you've written a masterclass in self-contradiction. You spend four paragraphs accusing others of letting emotion cloud judgment, then close by calling someone a "dullard", which is, itself, pure emotion clouding your judgment. The irony is so thick it matches your intelligence
Now, the substance. You're conflating political disruption with political success, and they aren't the same thing. By your logic, the man who throws a grenade into a crowded room is the most effective person there. Leave has left the UK poorer, less influential, and still bitterly divided, by your logic a wound he opened and then retreated to GB News while others managed the wreckage.
You note he "let the poshos do the high-minded stuff" while he handled the "grubbier immigration angle." You intend this as tactical praise. Others might call it a deliberate choice to inflame rather than inform.
Reform leading the polls is also a rather different achievement in a first-past-the-post system, as the 2024 results demonstrated. four million votes, five seats. Farage has been genuinely, remarkably effective at acquiring attention and applying pressure. That's real. But a politician who has never held a cabinet position, never passed legislation, and whose greatest legacy remains deeply contested isn't obviously the century's greatest success, he may simply be its greatest agitator.
Those are meaningfully different things, and distinguishing between them isn't emotional. It's the judgment you're asking others to exercise.
I may be a dullard but fuck knows what that makes you.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
A great deal of this is true. It is possible to take issue with whether the forces leading to the 2016 referendum were significantly within the Tory party - remember Major and Maastricht and all that - rather than only Farage, but a lot of what you say is true.
But the term 'successful' still has difficulties. It seems to me that a sensible view of Farage is that success must involve successfully making the UK much more like the place he ideologically wants it to be. Brexit is necessary for this but not sufficient. For example, Brexit was followed by the Boriswave, a massive opposite to Farage's wishes in migration. Since Brexit the UK has not done brilliantly well. None of that is down to Farage - of course.
He is clearly the most significant and influential politician of the 21st century so far. The competition has been dire but it's true. For success he has to run things and shape the nation his way. He may do so yet, but I doubt it.
Also, for success, the vision has to be clear. His current party is riddled with contradictions. For success in his own terms, it seems to me, he must make it to PM, and find a way forward which makes the UK a significantly better place, keep the voters of Clacton, who will be post WWII social democrats to a man, onside, deal with the issues of tax, spend, debt and deficit, and satisfy the buccaneer, libertarian urge without Trump, Putin and Xi being his best friends, make friends with and comprehend three million Muslims in the UK and a few other things.
That would be success, and the achievement would be truly great. And he will have to do it without my vote.
I almost entirely agree, see my comment below. There are two kinds of success in politics. Farage has only proved he is (very) good at the first: winning votes, minds, elections, referendums. The second kind, successful governance, is an entirely open question. We just don't know, we can only guess
My guess is that he might well be crap at it, but I am far from sure
IIRC a few days ago we were discussing pubs/inns called The Chequers. No idea why. But apropos of nothing at all, it occurred to me that in February 1660 Pepys stayed at an inn at Fowlmere which was and miraculously still is called The Chequers.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
I’ll not rise to the pathetic last sentence but, again, you've written a masterclass in self-contradiction. You spend four paragraphs accusing others of letting emotion cloud judgment, then close by calling someone a "dullard", which is, itself, pure emotion clouding your judgment. The irony is so thick it matches your intelligence
Now, the substance. You're conflating political disruption with political success, and they aren't the same thing. By your logic, the man who throws a grenade into a crowded room is the most effective person there. Leave has left the UK poorer, less influential, and still bitterly divided, by your logic a wound he opened and then retreated to GB News while others managed the wreckage.
You note he "let the poshos do the high-minded stuff" while he handled the "grubbier immigration angle." You intend this as tactical praise. Others might call it a deliberate choice to inflame rather than inform.
Reform leading the polls is also a rather different achievement in a first-past-the-post system, as the 2024 results demonstrated. four million votes, five seats. Farage has been genuinely, remarkably effective at acquiring attention and applying pressure. That's real. But a politician who has never held a cabinet position, never passed legislation, and whose greatest legacy remains deeply contested isn't obviously the century's greatest success, he may simply be its greatest agitator.
Those are meaningfully different things, and distinguishing between them isn't emotional. It's the judgment you're asking others to exercise.
I may be a dullard but fuck knows what that makes you.
IIRC a few days ago we were discussing pubs/inns called The Chequers. No idea why. But apropos of nothing at all, it occurred to me that in February 1660 Pepys stayed at an inn at Fowlmere which was and miraculously still is called The Chequers.
Ilford North has a The Chequers, on Barkingside High Street.
Maybe Mahmood thought she was just writing her name in one box but signing in the other box.
The two are clearly written by the same person: it's just the first one is designed to allow someone to actually -you know- read her name.
When you stop and think about it, it's insane how much weight we have traditionally put on signatures as a proof of identity.
We've all been at school and had to generate a parental signature in an emergency, haven't we?
As always, the key question is who leaked this and why did they leak this now?
Well, not that much weight. Any important signature requires a witness, so if necessary you can go to the witness to verify that the named person signed the form.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
A great deal of this is true. It is possible to take issue with whether the forces leading to the 2016 referendum were significantly within the Tory party - remember Major and Maastricht and all that - rather than only Farage, but a lot of what you say is true.
But the term 'successful' still has difficulties. It seems to me that a sensible view of Farage is that success must involve successfully making the UK much more like the place he ideologically wants it to be. Brexit is necessary for this but not sufficient. For example, Brexit was followed by the Boriswave, a massive opposite to Farage's wishes in migration. Since Brexit the UK has not done brilliantly well. None of that is down to Farage - of course.
He is clearly the most significant and influential politician of the 21st century so far. The competition has been dire but it's true. For success he has to run things and shape the nation his way. He may do so yet, but I doubt it.
Also, for success, the vision has to be clear. His current party is riddled with contradictions. For success in his own terms, it seems to me, he must make it to PM, and find a way forward which makes the UK a significantly better place, keep the voters of Clacton, who will be post WWII social democrats to a man, onside, deal with the issues of tax, spend, debt and deficit, and satisfy the buccaneer, libertarian urge without Trump, Putin and Xi being his best friends, make friends with and comprehend three million Muslims in the UK and a few other things.
That would be success, and the achievement would be truly great. And he will have to do it without my vote.
We haven't had a change of government since 1979 where the newly elected party wasn't recovering from the trauma of a very long spell in opposition. Blair, Cameron and Starmer were all primarily focused on the problem of how to stop losing elections rather than how to solve the problems facing the country, and all used variants of the Ming vase strategy.
Whatever you think of Farage, he wouldn't be coming into power with that mindset, so there's a real opportunity to do something significant.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Do you know if either / both have Starlink? Qatar now having Starlink on basically all their planes is just revolutionary.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Do you know if either / both have Starlink? Qatar now having Starlink on basically all their planes is just revolutionary.
Neither have it currently, although Singapore is adding it.
Fun fact: the first ever time I had Wi-Fi on a plane was all the way back in about 2006, and was Singapore Airlines
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Do you know if either / both have Starlink? Qatar now having Starlink on basically all their planes is just revolutionary.
Neither have it currently, although Singapore is adding it.
Fun fact: the first ever time I had Wi-Fi on a plane was all the way back in about 2006, and was Singapore Airlines
I hear BA might get functioning Wi-FI in 2036.....
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did deport them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
Indeed, and of course there will be a lag, confusing matters more.
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
I think you are confusing asylum claims with numbers arriving. Arrivals from the South East Asia are much more likely to be using the fake education then disappear or the arrive for fake / slavery job which isn't actually what is being claimed because they are highly unlikely to get asylum granted.
Albanians caught on to playing the poorly written modern slavery law for a while.
Polanski now retweeting one of the most virulently antisemitic accounts in Ireland, a man who was literally invited to Tehran by the Iranian regime to join a propaganda junket.
lol
Three observations:
1. Polanski is seriously seriously stupid. Just a dumb fucker. This is his education, from Wiki:
"Polanski studied drama at Aberystwyth University from 2003 to 2006 and attended a drama school in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States."
DRAMA AT ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY
Intellectually, he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Carl Jung. He will make many more of these errors due to his idiocy, and he will self destruct
Meaning:
2. The Green implosion will come much sooner than expected as Polanski falls apart; then the Islamists might try to take over earlier than they anticipated
Meaning:
3. This could be a shred of hope for Starmer as the Greens sink back
Amid your usual stream of consciousness drivel, there might actually be some genuine insight buried there. The next GE might very well turn out to be - contrary to all current expectations - a mostly familiar Labour versus Tory contest (with the LDs holding their 75-odd seats on the side), with the question being which of Reform or the Greens has imploded first and the more dramatically. Bet accordingly, DYOR.
In three years, most likely both.
With Farage at the helm, Reform just HAS to go tits up in that time.
When you look at Farage's career, do you see an unsuccessful politician who never wins things and keeps fucking things up? Because Reality would like to have a word
He's the most successful, capable and consequential British politician since Blair
I hate to burst this specific bubble but can you remind me how long it took him to win a seat in Parliament and the number of attempts? His vehicle wasn’t even the official Leave campaign. That “win” belongs to Johnson. He’s lost far more than he’s won.
This is quite alarmingly stupid
There is a special kind of mediocre brain which is unable to divorce emotional dislike from rational assessment. Any rational assessment of Farage says he is the most succesful politician in the UK in the 21st century. He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament, He did this very deliberately: to pressure the Tories into calling a Brexit vote. This worked. Cameron was obliged to call the vote. Farage showed greater strategic nous, in this instance, than any politician I can think of, in my adult lifetime
What's more, he was then instrumental in winning that referendum. He let the poshos - Boris and Gove - do the high-minded sovereignty stuff, while he did the grubbier immigration angle they did not want to touch. A clever two pronged attack, which, against all the odds, won that vote. We Brexited. Farage changed world history
Most politicians might be content with that - but he's come back for more, and he has transformed a whole NEW party. Which has now led the polls in this country for a year or more. Almost unprecedented. He's also an electrifying campaigner. Recall when he announced his takeover of Reform in Clacton, he had the entire media at his beck and call, and he went on to win that seat in Westminster, giving Reforn real momentum such that he now has very senior Tories - ex chancellors, ex Home Secretaries - defecting to his cause
He might well change British political history for the SECOND time
Now, none of this means he is a nice man, let alone a good man, you might justifiably see him as utterly malignant and a destructive force. Fair enough. But looking at what he achieved and then claiming he is "unsuccessful" is, as I say, a symptom of a specific kind of effete, struggling intellect which cannot separate emotions from judgment. It is the cognition of a dullard: and that is what you are
"He is personally responsible for building UKIP to such an extent that they WON a national election, for the EU parliament"
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If ever there was a more pointless exercise in "democracy" it was that "a free kick of Bishop Brennan up the arse" election.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand???
Winning that EU election terrified the Tories into promising a referendum on EU membership, if they won the subsequent UK general election. The Tories won the UK election. So Cameron had to call the referendum which Farage had forced. Et voila
Bugger off did it.
For one thing, it was under Theresa May. You know, the PM who took over AFTER Cameron had resigned because of the Referendum.
Jesus fucking Christ do you really not understand timelines? Muppet.
"Elections watchdog considers looking into £5m gift to Farage"
"The elections watchdog for England and Wales has said it is considering whether to look into the £5m given to Nigel Farage before the last general election.
"Reform UK mega donor Christopher Harborne gave the money to Farage in early 2024.
"In the correspondence, seen by the BBC, the Conservatives suggested that Farage should "have declared the donation to the Electoral Commission at the time as a regulated donee".
"Reform UK said the money was a gift, and that it was given at a time when the now-Reform leader had not yet committed to standing as an MP.
"In its response to the Conservative Party, the Commission confirmed "we are aware of this matter and are considering it under our regulatory remit. We will consider all the available relevant information and recommend what, if any, next steps the Commission will take."
"The watchdog promised to reply to the Conservatives no later than 12 May, which comes after next week's elections in Scotland and Wales, and local elections in many parts of England."
That is significant? The Commons committee looking into it is serious, but not about illegality, which was @Taz ’s earlier question. The Electoral Commission will be investigating illegality, although ultimately they can only refer it on to the police/prosecutors who would have to decide.
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did import them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
You couldn't get rid of them, because they had a presumption of a right to be in the UK. So even if you put them on a flight to -say- Bratislava, then they could just jump on a Megabus and return.
Now, at least, we have the ability to turn people away at the border. (And we and the Irish do share a list of people denied entry, so you can't just go via Dublin.)
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
Sure. It's just that this thing about countries cooperating/not cooperating with removals has been going on since before I was born. Just needs some steady, sensible application of pressure. As has been done many times before.
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
I think you are confusing asylum claims with numbers arriving. Arrivals from the South East Asia are much more likely to be using the education then overstay or the arrive for fake job.
Ah... so I was taking the line from the report "And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.", and thinking it applied just to asylum seekers.
Nevertheless, you do still need to look at the denominator. Some times there are more people arriving from a country and sometimes there are less.
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Surely in any given year there are going to be countries where removals are up and those where they're down? You can always paint a picture that things are a disaster by pointing solely at those countries where removals are down.
No this is a trend. The Albanian increase is because of the deal the Tories did, Labour focused on a significant number of Brazilians playing the system with fake Portuguese documents. But there are certain countries the UK is very poor at deporting people to and got worse, basically given up.
This is because a number of countries see votes in not cooperating with reparations. Their citizens want to come to the UK - some government back that by trying not to cooperate with the deportation system.
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
Comparing numbers deported also requires you to look at the denominator; i.e. how many people are arriving from a country!
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
I think you are confusing asylum claims with numbers arriving. Arrivals from the South East Asia are much more likely to be using the education then overstay or the arrive for fake job.
Ah... so I was taking the line from the report "And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.", and thinking it applied just to asylum seekers.
Nevertheless, you do still need to look at the denominator. Some times there are more people arriving from a country and sometimes there are less.
As an aside, the more I read that sentence the more I dislike it.
It's not asylum applications from all of these countries, but 'some'. Which ones? What time period? What's the overall shift?
I don't share @Leon's admiration for Farage as a politician. About the only thing he has ever won was Brexit and the extent to which he played a material part in that is highly contentious. As a Brexiteer myself I found his contributions dishonest and cringeworthy.
I do agree with his comments today about Polanski. It really says all that needs to be said about UK politics that someone with so little talent or judgment has got so far.
What I find dismaying is that Reform and the Greens are very likely to come first and second on Thursday in England. In Scotland the SNP will win but the gruesome twosome are likely to come second and third. In Wales Reform seem to be heading for second and the Greens will make good progress.
Do the majority of our population simply have no common sense? Are we so fed up with the banal incompetence of our mainstream parties that judgment has been completely suspended? This country is at serious risk of becoming both ungovernable and ungoverned.
He won the fucking European elections in 2014, you stupid berk
An election to a body that, it turned out, the majority didn't even want to be members of. Where he proceeded to make an arse of himself. Quite an achievement in a completely pointless talking shop.
Didn't you used to be quite smart?
The REASON Cameron called the EU Brexit vote was precisely because Farage terrified him into doing it, by winning those European elections in 2014. That was Farage's explicit strategy and ambition - win in Europe to force change in Britain (because it is much harder to break through in Britain due to FPTP, in Europe it is PR so new parties can come through). Farage succeeded handsomely. Without Farage, no Brexit
Am I talking to a bunch of ten year olds here?
We are not going to agree on this. Cameron went for the Brexit referendum, against the advice of Osborne, in an attempt to hold the broad centre right coalition that normally dominates UK politics together. It worked for a time and gave him a majority in 2015. It works no longer because Farage has tempted away many of the anti EU supporters who previously voted Tory, splitting the centre right in 2.
The result was a Labour majority of well over 100 on a small share of the vote. That thinks that majority should be used to bring us back into the EU. What an achievement that is. He is a disrupter who falls out with everyone. He will do it again, very probably before the next GE.
Farage would, actually, have been better off joining the Tories after Brexit, and seeking the leadership. I recall him saying that he was more popular than Sunak with Tory members. In other words done a Trump-type takeover.
But he's an opportunist who never, until he got the £5m bung, thought of becoming PM. Good reasons for that.
We can't be certain even now that in his heart he is prepared to be PM. He has ways out by retiring or losing. I just don't know whether he has the whatever it is that some people have got to be prepared to do what PMs have to do and take all the blame, and in his case disappoint the ludicrous and contradictory expectations of millions of quite dim people, and all the other stuff.
My firm expectation is that one way or another he won't ever be PM. I would be unhappy in this case to be wrong, but the pain would be substantially ameliorated by the sheer fascination of what will happen next. Dull it would not be.
I think he will be PM.
There's a great article by Nate Silver looking at why modern politicians become so unpopular so quickly. In it, he points out that a large part of Donald Trump's coalition was "not Harris". And the problem is that it's very hard to remain popular with the group who voted with you solely because you weren't someone else.
At the same time, politicians get enormous majorities (which they see as mandates) based on being "not [x]". Trump got it in the US, and Starmer got it in the UK.
This leads to hubris, which is an unfortunate thing to mix with support that is rather less deep than you think it is.
Farage will likely be PM in 2028 or 2029.
He will probably achieve this on 35% of the vote. He will be elected alongside a whole host of characters, many of whom have little experience.
He may be a Meloni, and grasp the nettle, and be a competent administrator.
He may also be someone whose flaws -whether laziness, love of alcohol, or inability to work with others- are quickly exposed by time in office.
If I had to choose the more likely scenario, it would be the second.
But we shall see.
Churchill used to have a bottle of champers for breakfast, before starting drinking.
Not that Farage is a Churchill for our times.
That's wrong
Churchill started the day with a small tumbler of scotch, diluted with water. He called it his "mouthwash"
The champagne came later. Famously, he would have a pint bottle of Pol Roger, at lunch
Come the evening he began drinking properly
Wasn't there a story bringing back the pint bottle ?
A pint of champagne contains pretty well the same as a 350ml bottle of Jinro soju. A pretty good amount for a serious buzz without being heavily impaired. I can see how it would work for a high functioning alcoholic.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Surprisingly, I can recommend Economy in Rwanda Air
Yes, I know, but they have so few passengers you get a row to yourself, they have bizarrely excellent overnight slots from Heathrow, and their attitude to wine is almost excessively generous
The only problem is that you need to be going to Kigali, but that's fairly minor
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did import them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
You couldn't get rid of them, because they had a presumption of a right to be in the UK. So even if you put them on a flight to -say- Bratislava, then they could just jump on a Megabus and return.
Now, at least, we have the ability to turn people away at the border. (And we and the Irish do share a list of people denied entry, so you can't just go via Dublin.)
I don't share @Leon's admiration for Farage as a politician. About the only thing he has ever won was Brexit and the extent to which he played a material part in that is highly contentious. As a Brexiteer myself I found his contributions dishonest and cringeworthy.
I do agree with his comments today about Polanski. It really says all that needs to be said about UK politics that someone with so little talent or judgment has got so far.
What I find dismaying is that Reform and the Greens are very likely to come first and second on Thursday in England. In Scotland the SNP will win but the gruesome twosome are likely to come second and third. In Wales Reform seem to be heading for second and the Greens will make good progress.
Do the majority of our population simply have no common sense? Are we so fed up with the banal incompetence of our mainstream parties that judgment has been completely suspended? This country is at serious risk of becoming both ungovernable and ungoverned.
He won the fucking European elections in 2014, you stupid berk
An election to a body that, it turned out, the majority didn't even want to be members of. Where he proceeded to make an arse of himself. Quite an achievement in a completely pointless talking shop.
Didn't you used to be quite smart?
The REASON Cameron called the EU Brexit vote was precisely because Farage terrified him into doing it, by winning those European elections in 2014. That was Farage's explicit strategy and ambition - win in Europe to force change in Britain (because it is much harder to break through in Britain due to FPTP, in Europe it is PR so new parties can come through). Farage succeeded handsomely. Without Farage, no Brexit
Am I talking to a bunch of ten year olds here?
We are not going to agree on this. Cameron went for the Brexit referendum, against the advice of Osborne, in an attempt to hold the broad centre right coalition that normally dominates UK politics together. It worked for a time and gave him a majority in 2015. It works no longer because Farage has tempted away many of the anti EU supporters who previously voted Tory, splitting the centre right in 2.
The result was a Labour majority of well over 100 on a small share of the vote. That thinks that majority should be used to bring us back into the EU. What an achievement that is. He is a disrupter who falls out with everyone. He will do it again, very probably before the next GE.
Farage would, actually, have been better off joining the Tories after Brexit, and seeking the leadership. I recall him saying that he was more popular than Sunak with Tory members. In other words done a Trump-type takeover.
But he's an opportunist who never, until he got the £5m bung, thought of becoming PM. Good reasons for that.
We can't be certain even now that in his heart he is prepared to be PM. He has ways out by retiring or losing. I just don't know whether he has the whatever it is that some people have got to be prepared to do what PMs have to do and take all the blame, and in his case disappoint the ludicrous and contradictory expectations of millions of quite dim people, and all the other stuff.
My firm expectation is that one way or another he won't ever be PM. I would be unhappy in this case to be wrong, but the pain would be substantially ameliorated by the sheer fascination of what will happen next. Dull it would not be.
I think he will be PM.
There's a great article by Nate Silver looking at why modern politicians become so unpopular so quickly. In it, he points out that a large part of Donald Trump's coalition was "not Harris". And the problem is that it's very hard to remain popular with the group who voted with you solely because you weren't someone else.
At the same time, politicians get enormous majorities (which they see as mandates) based on being "not [x]". Trump got it in the US, and Starmer got it in the UK.
This leads to hubris, which is an unfortunate thing to mix with support that is rather less deep than you think it is.
Farage will likely be PM in 2028 or 2029.
He will probably achieve this on 35% of the vote. He will be elected alongside a whole host of characters, many of whom have little experience.
He may be a Meloni, and grasp the nettle, and be a competent administrator.
He may also be someone whose flaws -whether laziness, love of alcohol, or inability to work with others- are quickly exposed by time in office.
If I had to choose the more likely scenario, it would be the second.
But we shall see.
Churchill used to have a bottle of champers for breakfast, before starting drinking.
Not that Farage is a Churchill for our times.
That's wrong
Churchill started the day with a small tumbler of scotch, diluted with water. He called it his "mouthwash"
The champagne came later. Famously, he would have a pint bottle of Pol Roger, at lunch
Come the evening he began drinking properly
Wasn't there a story bringing back the pint bottle ?
A pint of champagne contains pretty well the same as a 350ml bottle of Jinro soju. A pretty good amount for a serious buzz without being heavily impaired. I can see how it would work for a high functioning alcoholic.
Yes. Speaking as a high functioning alcoholic, a pint of champagne is kinda perfect. Over lunch
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did import them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
You couldn't get rid of them, because they had a presumption of a right to be in the UK. So even if you put them on a flight to -say- Bratislava, then they could just jump on a Megabus and return.
Now, at least, we have the ability to turn people away at the border. (And we and the Irish do share a list of people denied entry, so you can't just go via Dublin.)
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did deport them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Surprisingly, I can recommend Economy in Rwanda Air
Yes, I know, but they have so few passengers you get a row to yourself, they have bizarrely excellent overnight slots from Heathrow, and their attitude to wine is almost excessively generous
The only problem is that you need to be going to Kigali, but that's fairly minor
How far the likes of BA have fallen is shocking when you actually experience some decent service. Even Juneyao Air, a minor airline in China was vastly superior to BA's offering.
Talking about airlines / flights. Recommednations for airline to go Singapore to Sydney?
Singapore Airlines and Qantas are both excellent.
Cheers. I was thinking Singapore. I don't think I have ever flown Qantas. And definitely not f##king BA....anybody but BA...
First Class Singapore Airlines in the A380 is really something; probably the best experience I've had on a plane.
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Do you know if either / both have Starlink? Qatar now having Starlink on basically all their planes is just revolutionary.
Neither have it currently, although Singapore is adding it.
Fun fact: the first ever time I had Wi-Fi on a plane was all the way back in about 2006, and was Singapore Airlines
Another fun fact about Singapore Airlines. They ran a series of commercials with the headline and jingle "Singapore Girls" and Campaign in their weekly critique of Ads wrote the line not much appreciated but of its time "It's not the Singapore Girls we're worried about. It's the Singapore bloke whose flying the plane"
The number of people being removed to countries accused of gaming the UK immigration system has plummeted, the Express can reveal*.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is under growing pressure to impose visa bans on countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Jamaica as returns to these countries dropped by as much as 88%.
And it comes as the number of people claiming asylum from some of these countries surged by a staggering 373%.
The number of removals to Pakistan fell from 5,198 in 2015 to 1,237 last year. This is the biggest drop of any country worldwide.
Returns to Bangladesh fell from 2,302 in 2015 to 312, removals to Jamaica plummeted from 524 to just 63 over the same decade and the number of people being booted out to Sri Lanka dropped from 1,162 to 277.
Critics have accused Labour of “padding out” their removal numbers with Albanians, Brazilians and the EU.
* they are doing a lot of heavy lifting given these figures are publicly available. Even removing 5000 here, 2000 there, is just a drop in the bucket.
Given the amount of crime committed by Albanians, that's hardly padding it out! The framing that Albanians and Brazilians are less foreign than Jamaicans or Bangladeshis is rather unfortunate.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did import them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
You couldn't get rid of them, because they had a presumption of a right to be in the UK. So even if you put them on a flight to -say- Bratislava, then they could just jump on a Megabus and return.
Now, at least, we have the ability to turn people away at the border. (And we and the Irish do share a list of people denied entry, so you can't just go via Dublin.)
FoM was never absolute. EU countries can block individuals with criminal records from another EU country entering, although it’s got to be more than a minor spent conviction.
The lastest video from Daily Mail journalist on front line with drone operators has dropped. Is fascinating how in a year modern warfare has totally changed again.
Interesting - because legal judgements are using this in the U.K…
Not that I’m aware of at a CoA level or above anyway. Can you give me a citation, genuinely interested to read the case report, or just the name and I’ll find it
Comments
But the term 'successful' still has difficulties. It seems to me that a sensible view of Farage is that success must involve successfully making the UK much more like the place he ideologically wants it to be. Brexit is necessary for this but not sufficient. For example, Brexit was followed by the Boriswave, a massive opposite to Farage's wishes in migration. Since Brexit the UK has not done brilliantly well. None of that is down to Farage - of course.
He is clearly the most significant and influential politician of the 21st century so far. The competition has been dire but it's true. For success he has to run things and shape the nation his way. He may do so yet, but I doubt it.
Also, for success, the vision has to be clear. His current party is riddled with contradictions. For success in his own terms, it seems to me, he must make it to PM, and find a way forward which makes the UK a significantly better place, keep the voters of Clacton, who will be post WWII social democrats to a man, onside, deal with the issues of tax, spend, debt and deficit, and satisfy the buccaneer, libertarian urge without Trump, Putin and Xi being his best friends, make friends with and comprehend three million Muslims in the UK and a few other things.
That would be success, and the achievement would be truly great. And he will have to do it without my vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62xg40w4ero
"Elections watchdog considers looking into £5m gift to Farage"
"The elections watchdog for England and Wales has said it is considering whether to look into the £5m given to Nigel Farage before the last general election.
"Reform UK mega donor Christopher Harborne gave the money to Farage in early 2024.
"In the correspondence, seen by the BBC, the Conservatives suggested that Farage should "have declared the donation to the Electoral Commission at the time as a regulated donee".
"Reform UK said the money was a gift, and that it was given at a time when the now-Reform leader had not yet committed to standing as an MP.
"In its response to the Conservative Party, the Commission confirmed "we are aware of this matter and are considering it under our regulatory remit. We will consider all the available relevant information and recommend what, if any, next steps the Commission will take."
"The watchdog promised to reply to the Conservatives no later than 12 May, which comes after next week's elections in Scotland and Wales, and local elections in many parts of England."
🚨 NEW: The Green Party has complained to The Times over its "antisemitic cartoon depiction" of Zack Polanski with a hooked nose
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2050614172497379711
My guess is that he might well be crap at it, but I am far from sure
We've all been at school and had to generate a parental signature in an emergency, haven't we?
As always, the key question is who leaked this and why did they leak this now?
The PLP really are stupid WS is SKS2 and even closer to Mandelson
The right wing faction really dont get that a move to Green territory rather than Reform territory is the only chance
Oh well they are about to get their comeuppance
If you're traveling in more regular levels of comfort, then if you have status on One World, then I'd probably go with Qantas. Their lounges are *really* good.
Whatever you think of Farage, he wouldn't be coming into power with that mindset, so there's a real opportunity to do something significant.
The cost has just gone up 10% in a week
The Starlink Hack That Fooled Russian Forces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZCbycrMczo
Boy George on RTE last night
Fun fact: the first ever time I had Wi-Fi on a plane was all the way back in about 2006, and was Singapore Airlines
The recourse of cutting off visas (at various levels) quickly concentrates their minds.
It's a part of the back-and-forth of international relations. Nothing to jump up and down about - a case of applying sensible, firm pressure and things start moving again.
(When we were in the EU, did we deport criminals to their home countries after sentencing, or did we just allow them to stay here? And if we did deport them, how long could we keep them out under the FoM rules?)
When I mentioned my Jewish ancestry, at a very local* pub in rural Wiltshire, the reaction wasn't negative. It was "that's a new thing".
*the pubs were either for the "outsiders" or the locals. This one had the best pool table.
So, saying that the number of Bangladeshis has fallen from 2,300 in a year to under 500 is also influenced by the fact that the number claiming asylum dropped fell 70% to under 1,000 between 2016 and 2021. You can't deport 2,300 per year (or at least not for many years in a row) if less than 1,000 are arriving.
Albanians caught on to playing the poorly written modern slavery law for a while.
Now, at least, we have the ability to turn people away at the border. (And we and the Irish do share a list of people denied entry, so you can't just go via Dublin.)
https://x.com/RachelMoiselle/status/2050635620859441208
Nevertheless, you do still need to look at the denominator. Some times there are more people arriving from a country and sometimes there are less.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage
Green Party leader Zack Polanski
And that's a no from me....
It's not asylum applications from all of these countries, but 'some'. Which ones? What time period? What's the overall shift?
A pint of champagne contains pretty well the same as a 350ml bottle of Jinro soju.
A pretty good amount for a serious buzz without being heavily impaired. I can see how it would work for a high functioning alcoholic.
Yes, I know, but they have so few passengers you get a row to yourself, they have bizarrely excellent overnight slots from Heathrow, and their attitude to wine is almost excessively generous
The only problem is that you need to be going to Kigali, but that's fairly minor
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/mar/29/eu-dangerous-criminals-allowed-free-entry-uk-vote-leave-claims
I suspect the gulf between theory and pratice here was huge. Of course, if we had been in Schenghen, it would have been truly impossible.
Thank you.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=famous+singapore+girls+advert#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7e562e21,vid:OMiKrvv9xVQ,st:0
I don’t know whether that was a planned change
I know its the telegraph but it could be important
NEC will longer prevent Burnham standing for parliamrnt
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/02/burnham-winning-over-labour-ruling-body/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXR_uGjxH-U
NEW THREAD