To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
ILR isn't a binding contract on either side. People who have it know that too and most opt for citizenship after a short amount of time. My wife got citizenship a few months after she became eligible and now she's a dual national of Swiss and British citizenship.
More to the point, the policy on ILR won't make a huge difference anyway, it's actually Labour's proposal to extend ILR to 10 years that is necessary and raising the bar for visa renewal to £60k or higher on all visa types. That will naturally mean very few visas are eligible for renewal and people will return home.
I also think we should adopt the US policy of making people apply for their visa extension outside of the country so if they are rejected they have no recourse to re-enter or fight the decision in court.
Finally I think Labour should propose a maximum visa length of 3 years rather than 5, requiring a minimum of 4 renewals before ILR is achieved.
Controversially I also think citizenship should have a 5 year "approval" period of some kind whereby it can be revoked if proof of fraud, criminal activity of support of terrorism is discovered.
We've been far, far too lax in handing out the golden ticket of citizenship over the past 50 years and the concept of how difficult it should be needs a big reassessment. British citizenship for foreign nationals should be seen as a huge privilege and the bar to obtain it should be set extremely high, I'd have it so that even "trivial" crime such as fare evasion would bar someone from eligibility for life and result in visa revocation and return flight. Immigration should be additive to society and importing any person who undermines a high trust society doesn't belong here
Agree with all of that
I would just add a few things. Don't make it all stick, offer some carrot too
eg if you join the armed forces, then that should count as a credit, and the process is speeded up. If you create notable wealth, ditto. Make it easier for truly productive, truly loyal people to gain that citizenship
This isn't a question of IF or WHETHER, either. Such is the scale of the Boriswave and recent migration in general, and such is the scale of their dependency on benefits, if we don't tighten things up dramatically, the nation will go bankrupt and we will all be eating rats. And @nico67 and @maxh won't have time to signal their virtues or speculate on the concept of nationhood, as they will be fighting in the rubble
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
On the left of the party the thought of replacing Sir Keir Starmer with Wes Streeting is a seen as bit like soiling your trousers and choosing to replace only your hat. Andy Burnham realises an early contest rules him out.
is slightly reminiscent of a great passage in Pepys, where on 7th October 1660 he writes in connection with the rumour that James, Duke of York had got Anne Hyde pregnant out of wedlock:
"My Lord told me that among his father's many old sayings that he had writ in a book of his, this is one: that he that doth get a wench with child and marries her afterward it is as if a man should shit in his hat and then clap it upon his head."
He argues for a return to the pre-1998 situation before judicial activism where a decision is only overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have foreseen it.
I think he misses one important point: politicians liked handing things off to judges, because it enabled them to escape responsibility for unpopular decisions.
There's an obvious solution to that problem. Make popular decisions instead.
Apparently not everybody agrees with every decision.
Welcome to a world where 60-70% are against even the most popular of our political parties, realistically 70%+ will be against whoever is in power.
If Rayner harbours ambitions herself (of course she does, even if she got basically nowhere with housing), she needs the process of replacing Starmer to slow down, because the HMRC thing still hangs over her.
Catching up with BBC Wales. The reporters cannot contain their excitement at Plaid's win.
You should be pleased - you voted for them
I did and I am happy that they beat Reform, but BBC Wales News, ITV Wales News and S4C has been a hotbed of Welsh Nationalism since Gwynfor Evans threatened to hunger strike.
Almost the reverse in Scotland. I wonder what the cultural/historical reasons are for that? Language?
Having now been to Rwanda - last week - I can say with some authority that: it would likely have worked, if enacted properly
Rwanda is actually a perfect choice for such a scheme, in the absence of a handy but bleak nearby island, as the Australians had
It is a long long long way away. It is locked up in central Africa. It is poor and in some places grim, you really don't want to live there. But it it also stable and safe, so you can humanely send people there, if all these people care about is being safe (and that is supposedly the situation with asylum seekers, unless of course they are fake and just looking for better benefits and economic opportunity)
I reckon HMG would have solved the boats overnight if they'd managed to get a few hundred people there, but done it intensely - ie shipping 90% of arrivals in one month. That would have terrified the boat people and the boats would have stopped
It wouldn't even have needed a 90% removal rate. Probably only 20%. If you have a one in five chance of being deported to Rwanda after paying £3-4k to a smuggling gang that your family back home will be hounded for then you're probably not going to take the risk.
The first two or three planes being broadcast far and wide across Africa and Asia would have probably been enough IMO to stop it and then a constant trickle of continued deportations.
As I said at the time, all illegal arrivals should have been offered voluntary return to their home country or forced deportation to Rwanda. It should have been made clear that there was no scenario where staying in the UK was an option. The Tories were too weak to face down the unelected judges and bureaucracy.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
ILR isn't a binding contract on either side. People who have it know that too and most opt for citizenship after a short amount of time. My wife got citizenship a few months after she became eligible and now she's a dual national of Swiss and British citizenship.
More to the point, the policy on ILR won't make a huge difference anyway, it's actually Labour's proposal to extend ILR to 10 years that is necessary and raising the bar for visa renewal to £60k or higher on all visa types. That will naturally mean very few visas are eligible for renewal and people will return home.
I also think we should adopt the US policy of making people apply for their visa extension outside of the country so if they are rejected they have no recourse to re-enter or fight the decision in court.
Finally I think Labour should propose a maximum visa length of 3 years rather than 5, requiring a minimum of 4 renewals before ILR is achieved.
Controversially I also think citizenship should have a 5 year "approval" period of some kind whereby it can be revoked if proof of fraud, criminal activity of support of terrorism is discovered.
We've been far, far too lax in handing out the golden ticket of citizenship over the past 50 years and the concept of how difficult it should be needs a big reassessment. British citizenship for foreign nationals should be seen as a huge privilege and the bar to obtain it should be set extremely high, I'd have it so that even "trivial" crime such as fare evasion would bar someone from eligibility for life and result in visa revocation and return flight. Immigration should be additive to society and importing any person who undermines a high trust society doesn't belong here
Agree with all of that
I would just add a few things. Don't make it all stick, offer some carrot too
eg if you join the armed forces, then that should count as a credit, and the process is speeded up. If you create notable wealth, ditto. Make it easier for truly productive, truly loyal people to gain that citizenship
This isn't a question of IF or WHETHER, either. Such is the scale of the Boriswave and recent migration in general, and such is the scale of their dependency on benefits, if we don't tighten things up dramatically, the nation will go bankrupt and we will all be eating rats. And @nico67 and @maxh won't have time to signal their virtues or speculate on the concept of nationhood, as they will be fighting in the rubble
Yes, I think that's probably fair. Serving in the armed forces may be worth a shorter time to citizenship, though it would need to be very strict because in future a government will extend that to emergency services, then NHS workers, then teachers, then care workers and suddenly you're back where we are now.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
ILR isn't a binding contract on either side. People who have it know that too and most opt for citizenship after a short amount of time. My wife got citizenship a few months after she became eligible and now she's a dual national of Swiss and British citizenship.
More to the point, the policy on ILR won't make a huge difference anyway, it's actually Labour's proposal to extend ILR to 10 years that is necessary and raising the bar for visa renewal to £60k or higher on all visa types. That will naturally mean very few visas are eligible for renewal and people will return home.
I also think we should adopt the US policy of making people apply for their visa extension outside of the country so if they are rejected they have no recourse to re-enter or fight the decision in court.
Finally I think Labour should propose a maximum visa length of 3 years rather than 5, requiring a minimum of 4 renewals before ILR is achieved.
Controversially I also think citizenship should have a 5 year "approval" period of some kind whereby it can be revoked if proof of fraud, criminal activity of support of terrorism is discovered.
We've been far, far too lax in handing out the golden ticket of citizenship over the past 50 years and the concept of how difficult it should be needs a big reassessment. British citizenship for foreign nationals should be seen as a huge privilege and the bar to obtain it should be set extremely high, I'd have it so that even "trivial" crime such as fare evasion would bar someone from eligibility for life and result in visa revocation and return flight. Immigration should be additive to society and importing any person who undermines a high trust society doesn't belong here
Agree with all of that
I would just add a few things. Don't make it all stick, offer some carrot too
eg if you join the armed forces, then that should count as a credit, and the process is speeded up. If you create notable wealth, ditto. Make it easier for truly productive, truly loyal people to gain that citizenship
This isn't a question of IF or WHETHER, either. Such is the scale of the Boriswave and recent migration in general, and such is the scale of their dependency on benefits, if we don't tighten things up dramatically, the nation will go bankrupt and we will all be eating rats. And @nico67 and @maxh won't have time to signal their virtues or speculate on the concept of nationhood, as they will be fighting in the rubble
It feels entirely appropriate that I wrote a long, musing post in reply to Anne directly below your post.
And with that, adieu. Kids dinner calls.
PS In case you missed it earlier, sorry for being an arse. I would feel equally aggrieved if I was told I held an opinion that I had just said I didn't.
PPS just seen your reply to my musing/virtue signalling. I am delighted to own the badge of being somewhat unusual.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh.
I think what has been agreed across the board, including by Starmer, is that the 'Boriswave' has seen immigration on a scale where successful integration (let alone assimilation) is simply not possible. That isn't a judgement on people, it's just a fact. Neither our welfare system nor our society can cope with immigration at that speed, in those numbers, from those places. So regrettably, those people must return home.
With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together.
I also don't take your point that 'Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity = unnalloyed racism'. It is not that we are more worthy of it, but we should certainly expect that our Government prioritises it over the wealth and prosperity of other peoples - that is what any Government must do, and it seems to be a uniquely British approach that the wellbeing of non-British subjects should be prioritised above those of British ones. It breaks the social contract.
This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
This rhetoric around those "whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate" is the sort of nonsense we had in this country for centuries around Catholics. The same gumpf was still being said in the US when JFK stood.
Nigel Farage's loyalty lies either to the guy in Thailand who gave him £5 million, or to his idol Donald Trump. He's clearly happy to distort policy to satisfy both of them. Can we chuck Farage out of the country?
It's not all nonsense though, is it. We've just seen a bunch of 'independents' elected primarily because a section of society cares mostly about Gaza than anything else. You also see it in the cricket. When Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc okay tests in England the stands are chock full of second and third generation Asians supporting the touring sides. I have no issues with that and identity is tricky for some. It's easy for me - I suspect my Wiltshire roots reach back to before the disappearance of Dogger land. But it's less easy for the children of immigrants.
People care about different things: I know a bunch of people who are very aggravated about Gaza, and they’re all white, middle class atheists. Look at much of the leadership of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for the same!
People are complicated. They can have different identities and connections to different parts of the world. Those connections can be through birth, through heritage, through choice or through accident. That’s not a bad thing. It’s not a problem that needs fixing.
@Sandpit has a Ukrainian wife and lives in the UAE. Must we be scared in case his loyalties are split? @rcs1000 mostly lives in the US. Where do his loyalties lie? No, the question is only phrased about brown people, with a racist assumption that every Muslim must be suspected of supporting a global caliphate.
@Luckyguy1983 rhetorically asked what happens if there’s a war. Well, we’ve fought numerous wars with or in Muslim countries over many decades, and the country didn’t fall over because all the Muslims refused to join up. There’s no scary fifth column. Let’s treat people as people.
It's all very well to say that we should treat people as people but then how would you interpret someone like Lutfur Rahman controlling Tower Hamlets? The reality is we have had immigration not only of people as individuals but of peoples as groups, and this is now having electoral consequences.
Lutfur Rahman is a person, and I would treat him as a person. A person who was guilty of breaking election law and is deeply corrupt. Voters sometimes vote for vile, corrupt people. They did in the US for Trump. They did in Tower Hamlets for Rahman. I think both of them should have been given more significant punishments than they have been. I don’t think either is a reason to be suspicious of a group of people.
I agree. So you would presumably agree that it is wrong for police during riot season to ask protestors bearing swords to 'go and put them back in the Mosque' rather than arresting them for carrying offensive weapons? Wrong for Sir Keir Starmer when Head of the CPS to hand out ASBO style warning letters to people having sex with minors? Wrong for police to ignore widespread incitement during Palestine marches? Wrong for the police to ignore people smoking and carrying carrying large amounts of dope? Wrong to charge ONE person after the Clapham riots?
I agree. I'd like to get back to applying the law universally without fear or favour. I actually think it would be better for communities that these sorts of crimes affect disproportionately. But I don't get the feeling that you are against 'community policing' and other euphemisms meaning unequal and derisory application of the law. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Catching up with BBC Wales. The reporters cannot contain their excitement at Plaid's win.
You should be pleased - you voted for them
I did and I am happy that they beat Reform, but BBC Wales News, ITV Wales News and S4C has been a hotbed of Welsh Nationalism since Gwynfor Evans threatened to hunger strike.
Almost the reverse in Scotland. I wonder what the cultural/historical reasons are for that? Language?
Ap Iorweth was a BBC political journo. They all have Welsh Nat names like Betsan Powys and Teleri Glyn- Jones.
I do think S4C has had a lot to do with it.
Anyway, I am content Reform were a country mile behind them.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
If Sunak wrote all that, it includes the lie more or less direct. The courts intervened to apply the law as it stood. To blame them for applying the law is Daily Mail level comment. Sunak wanted and wants it both ways: for the UK to have human right legislation and treaty obligations and for the courts to apply only the bit of the law he is thinking of. Courts have 800 years of common law, statute, treaty and regulation to take account of. All of which parliament (or in some cases government) can if they wish repeal, amend or withdraw from.
- Glenn Gibbins (Sunderland): suspended by Reform following allegations of racism; - Jay Cooper (Sefton): declared “not welcome” by Farage following reports of him calling the Holocaust a hoax; - Daniel Devaney (Bradford) said he was pulling out before polling day but got elected anyway... it's not yet clear if he is resigning as a councillor....
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
ILR isn't a binding contract on either side. People who have it know that too and most opt for citizenship after a short amount of time. My wife got citizenship a few months after she became eligible and now she's a dual national of Swiss and British citizenship.
More to the point, the policy on ILR won't make a huge difference anyway, it's actually Labour's proposal to extend ILR to 10 years that is necessary and raising the bar for visa renewal to £60k or higher on all visa types. That will naturally mean very few visas are eligible for renewal and people will return home.
I also think we should adopt the US policy of making people apply for their visa extension outside of the country so if they are rejected they have no recourse to re-enter or fight the decision in court.
Finally I think Labour should propose a maximum visa length of 3 years rather than 5, requiring a minimum of 4 renewals before ILR is achieved.
Controversially I also think citizenship should have a 5 year "approval" period of some kind whereby it can be revoked if proof of fraud, criminal activity of support of terrorism is discovered.
We've been far, far too lax in handing out the golden ticket of citizenship over the past 50 years and the concept of how difficult it should be needs a big reassessment. British citizenship for foreign nationals should be seen as a huge privilege and the bar to obtain it should be set extremely high, I'd have it so that even "trivial" crime such as fare evasion would bar someone from eligibility for life and result in visa revocation and return flight. Immigration should be additive to society and importing any person who undermines a high trust society doesn't belong here
Agree with all of that
I would just add a few things. Don't make it all stick, offer some carrot too
eg if you join the armed forces, then that should count as a credit, and the process is speeded up. If you create notable wealth, ditto. Make it easier for truly productive, truly loyal people to gain that citizenship
This isn't a question of IF or WHETHER, either. Such is the scale of the Boriswave and recent migration in general, and such is the scale of their dependency on benefits, if we don't tighten things up dramatically, the nation will go bankrupt and we will all be eating rats. And @nico67 and @maxh won't have time to signal their virtues or speculate on the concept of nationhood, as they will be fighting in the rubble
It feels entirely appropriate that I wrote a long, musing post in reply to Anne directly below your post.
And with that, adieu. Kids dinner calls.
PS In case you missed it earlier, sorry for being an arse. I would feel equally aggrieved if I was told I held an opinion that I had just said I didn't.
PPS just seen your reply to my musing/virtue signalling. I am delighted to own the badge of being somewhat unusual.
That's a gracious apology, which I happily accept
Your musings on nationhood are interesting, don't stop just because people disagree
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
All these look like good reasons to not hand over the mayor of Manchester's job to Reform.
If Sunak wrote all that, it includes the lie more or less direct. The courts intervened to apply the law as it stood. To blame them for applying the law is Daily Mail level comment. Sunak wanted and wants it both ways: for the UK to have human right legislation and treaty obligations and for the courts to apply only the bit of the law he is thinking of. Courts have 800 years of common law, statute, treaty and regulation to take account of. All of which parliament (or in some cases government) can if they wish repeal, amend or withdraw from.
++++++
I agree, This is Sunak trying to rewrite history. He didn't have the hairy bollocks to push this through, he should stop blaming judges, and accept his culpability
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
If Sunak wrote all that, it includes the lie more or less direct. The courts intervened to apply the law as it stood. To blame them for applying the law is Daily Mail level comment. Sunak wanted and wants it both ways: for the UK to have human right legislation and treaty obligations and for the courts to apply only the bit of the law he is thinking of. Courts have 800 years of common law, statute, treaty and regulation to take account of. All of which parliament (or in some cases government) can if they wish repeal, amend or withdraw from.
++++++
I agree, This is Sunak trying to rewrite history. He didn't have the hairy bollocks to push this through, he should stop blaming judges, and accept his culpability
It makes me think slightly less of him
Indeed. Suella told him it didn't have teeth and wouldn't work, and recommended a lot of notwithstanding clauses to strengthen it. He didn't listen, and then called an election before the policy could fail (or work).
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
If I speed 120 miles down the M1, get caught, and banned from driving then I can't really have any complaints. If the DVLA send me a letter telling me I'm getting banned because they simply want less drivers on the road, then I'm going to the solicitors.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham's behaviour has been very disappointing. His entire narrative seems to focus entirely on Andy Burnham.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Easy. Andy has an ego the size of Old Trafford. (If any Mancunians wish to come up with a better metaphor, be my guest.)
One of May's problems as PM (and I think the rhyme with Starmer is compelling) is that she got the top job "by accident" over the heads of people who thought they deserved it more and weren't going to let it lie. The other issue is that May and Starmer both floundered with solving tradeoffs that their rivals simply ignored, but that's another story. But the ego problem in politics (you need a massive ego to even want to climb the ladder but you're then expected to swallow that ego to be an effective team player) is hard to solve.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
If I speed 120 miles down the M1, get caught, and banned from driving then I can't really have any complaints. If the DVLA send me a letter telling me I'm getting banned because they simply want less drivers on the road, then I'm going to the solicitors.
But you've got a licence. They don't have citizenship, ILR isn't citizenship and it isn't a binding legal agreement. The terms of ILR can be changed at the whim of the state, it's one of the reasons most people don't hang about with ILR and instead get citizenship.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
If I speed 120 miles down the M1, get caught, and banned from driving then I can't really have any complaints. If the DVLA send me a letter telling me I'm getting banned because they simply want less drivers on the road, then I'm going to the solicitors.
And you'd lose, if you want to keep the metaphor exact
The law is the law. ILR is not citizenship. It CAN be revoked on several grounds, and it can be revoked merely because the government wishes to do so. And people who get ILR are told this
Is is cruel to revoke it? Perhaps. But life is often cruel, and the British people have rights as well. They have the right to say: Sorry, you cannot stay, we are indeed going to revoke your status, and you were warned that could happen
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham feels like a Boris figure to me. He is 'l'inevitable' like Palmerston said of himself.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh. ... With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together. ... This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
I don't see Reform as civic nationalists, with religion privatised.
Their most prominent commentator is Danny Kruger, who is explicit that the public square be defined by religion, which is part of his National Conservative philosophy. As far as I can see he is the lead Reform commentator on this question - although Matt Goodwin has also described Reform as a National Conservative party. I have not heard a view from Farage.
Kruger addressed this in his prominent Commons speech on 25 July 2025:
Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-07-17a.520.0&s=speaker:25913+-section:wrans+speaker:25913#g520.2
(That is before Kruger crossed the floor, but he still pursues the same themes, slowly becoming more nuanced.)
I find Kruger's version of English history quite romantic, almost like Arthur Mee, and a firmer assertion of the public square as based on religion than we have seen since Queen Victoria. I'd agree with you on Restore UK being a very different kettle of fish.
Parliament makes and sets the law. They just need to make laws that can’t be easily shot down.
The more laws there are on the statute book, the harder that gets. It's a bit like the difficulty of building new underground lines in central London; anything you want to construct has to not conflict with all the stuff that's already there.
If you want to argue that many laws are too vague and can be extended to scenarios where we don't want them to apply- fine. But there's still a duty to work out what the limits are.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
If I speed 120 miles down the M1, get caught, and banned from driving then I can't really have any complaints. If the DVLA send me a letter telling me I'm getting banned because they simply want less drivers on the road, then I'm going to the solicitors.
And you'd lose, if you want to keep the metaphor exact
The law is the law. ILR is not citizenship. It CAN be revoked on several grounds, and it can be revoked merely because the government wishes to do so. And people who get ILR are told this
Is is cruel to revoke it? Perhaps. But life is often cruel, and the British people have rights as well. They have the right to say: Sorry, you cannot stay, we are indeed going to revoke your status, and you were warned that could happen
I think what we will end up with is ILR as a concept just disappearing, lots of countries just don't have it. They have residency permits which need to be renewed or citizenship. I think that's where we should go and have special reciprocal agreements with a handful of countries that don't allow dual nationality such as Japan or Lithuania where their citizens are very positive for the country.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham feels like a Boris figure to me. He is 'l'inevitable' like Palmerston said of himself.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Flags have nothing to do with a country being a home. A country is a home and it is not just limited to one's immediate community. Migrants should have the power to make the nation they are born in a better place and the sort of home they want. We can help them with that to some extent. But the duty of a British government is primarily to make things better for people here and for the poorer parts of Britain. It is not its job to impoverish Britain so as to achieve some sort of global equality. Nor is its job to prioritise the demands of migrants over those of British citizens.
The discontent is partly a perception that British politicians neither like nor value Britain and neither like nor value many of its inhabitants. I don't care one way or the other whether a politician has a flag behind him when he speaks. I tend to dislike it because it feels so insincere most of the time. But I bloody well do want politicians to behave and talk as if they know, understand and care for this country and the people in it, even the unfashionable ones living in out of the way places. I want them to show some interest and curiosity in these people, some realisation that they are more interesting, savvy and thoughtful than many assume and that they need to feel that they have stake here and that the country has a stake in them and concern for them.
That is missing in our politics. And was, if you don't mind me saying so, somewhat missing in your original post - though your later posts show that this is perhaps unfair.
There is a very de haut en bas contempt for ordinary people on this forum. But ordinary people are interesting if you bother to make the effort. The political class has stopped making the effort.
Parliament makes and sets the law. They just need to make laws that can’t be easily shot down.
The more laws there are on the statute book, the harder that gets. It's a bit like the difficulty of building new underground lines in central London; anything you want to construct has to not conflict with all the stuff that's already there.
If you want to argue that many laws are too vague and can be extended to scenarios where we don't want them to apply- fine. But there's still a duty to work out what the limits are.
If the government wanted to allow larger lattice towers for mobile coverage tomorrow they could do so. The courts cannot prevent that.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
I think it's a mix -- I think of the UK as home, but my perception of what "home* is and how my home is doing is strongly shaped by what I see and experience every day in the local area around me. As it gets further away and for places I haven't been it gets a bit more abstract --:if I go to Cornwall or Manchester or York I feel familiarity and at home there: these places are not so distant and not greatly different from where I live in the south of England . Edinburgh, also, but so far away it gets a bit more tenuous. And Belfast I have no emotional connection with at all -- considering whether it should stay in the UK or become part of Ireland I have no instinctive or emotional take: it's as abstract to me as whether Quebec should secede from Canada or not.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
Well by blocking him that is inevitable as were the 1500 fewer councillors
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
Well by blocking him that is inevitable as were the 1500 fewer councillors
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
Clue its not SKS, Streeting or Rayner
In Streeting's manor, we held most of our seats. In Burnham's we lost 80%.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
Well by blocking him that is inevitable as were the 1500 fewer councillors
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
Well by blocking him that is inevitable as were the 1500 fewer councillors
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
Clue its not SKS, Streeting or Rayner
Only 1 Reform councillor in Da North Ilford Ghetto!
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham feels like a Boris figure to me. He is 'l'inevitable' like Palmerston said of himself.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
In these days he is the colossus that the country and party need.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
A perfectly nice feeling to have. But I don't want the country I call home (which happens to be the same one) to be a place where it matters one iota, as regards whether a person is deemed to belong here, where the bones of their ancestors are buried.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
I think it's a mix -- I think of the UK as home, but my perception of what "home* is and how my home is doing is strongly shaped by what I see and experience every day in the local area around me. As it gets further away and for places I haven't been it gets a bit more abstract --:if I go to Cornwall or Manchester or York I feel familiarity and at home there: these places are not so distant and not greatly different from where I live in the south of England . Edinburgh, also, but so far away it gets a bit more tenuous. And Belfast I have no emotional connection with at all -- considering whether it should stay in the UK or become part of Ireland I have no instinctive or emotional take: it's as abstract to me as whether Quebec should secede from Canada or not.
The concept of home is fascinating. I can draw a fairly good set of contour lines showing how strongly I feel places are 'home'. Obviously it centres on Cheshire and South Manchester, but most of the north is fairly high - but much of western England and much of Scotland south of Inverness also features. All of Great Britain though is much, much higher than anywhere abroad, no matter how nice or how often visited.
The Welsh concept of 'Gwlad', and indeed or 'Hiraeth' (sp?) is helpful here.
An important feature of 'home' is that other people who live there also consider it home. It is jarring to feel strongly about somewhere whose other residenta are just passing through.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham would be an MP, and we'd have a Reform mayor of Greater Manchester.
Well by blocking him that is inevitable as were the 1500 fewer councillors
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
I think it's a mix -- I think of the UK as home, but my perception of what "home* is and how my home is doing is strongly shaped by what I see and experience every day in the local area around me. As it gets further away and for places I haven't been it gets a bit more abstract --:if I go to Cornwall or Manchester or York I feel familiarity and at home there: these places are not so distant and not greatly different from where I live in the south of England . Edinburgh, also, but so far away it gets a bit more tenuous. And Belfast I have no emotional connection with at all -- considering whether it should stay in the UK or become part of Ireland I have no instinctive or emotional take: it's as abstract to me as whether Quebec should secede from Canada or not.
The concept of home is fascinating. I can draw a fairly good set of contour lines showing how strongly I feel places are 'home'. Obviously it centres on Cheshire and South Manchester, but most of the north is fairly high - but much of western England and much of Scotland south of Inverness also features. All of Great Britain though is much, much higher than anywhere abroad, no matter how nice or how often visited.
The Welsh concept of 'Gwlad', and indeed or 'Hiraeth' (sp?) is helpful here.
An important feature of 'home' is that other people who live there also consider it home. It is jarring to feel strongly about somewhere whose other residenta are just passing through.
That is a personal feature to you. Living in London, probably as many passing through as settled but its home to me and millions of others. That we have people from all over the world visiting and contributing is a feature not a problem.
Have now read the Queen in the North's full manifesto in two tweets. She will run, tax cloud be damned.
It looks pricey (lots of extra spending) and populist (it's paid for by plutocratic corporations and far cats.) An inner voice tells me that Labour MPs will love it and those (plutocrats and fat cats all) who lend £3 trillion+ and rising to the government will like it less.
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Because SKSs right wing cult blocked him,as they ran scared of the best rated PM being back.
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
Burnham feels like a Boris figure to me. He is 'l'inevitable' like Palmerston said of himself.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Surely calling for defenestration is grounds for it?
Catherine West has said she will do this: (Guardian)
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
Have now read the Queen in the North's full manifesto in two tweets. She will run, tax cloud be damned.
It looks pricey (lots of extra spending) and populist (it's paid for by plutocratic corporations and far cats.) An inner voice tells me that Labour MPs will love it and those (plutocrats and fat cats all) who lend £3 trillion+ and rising to the government will like it less.
I just don't see how we squeeze more wealth out of the country, which is needed to pay for the things we demand, without growing significantly. She mentions other places that are apparently growing, Spain and Canada, but if that is the case do they have advantages that we do not, or are they doing things we can easily replicate? And if they are and we can, what are those things and why were we not already doing them since they can apparently be socially democratic and lead to growth?
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
In their homeland that need would most often be fulfilled by self-abuse, prior to marriage. No reason it shouldn't be here.
Surely calling for defenestration is grounds for it?
Catherine West has said she will do this: (Guardian)
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
She will magically decide Starmer's speech is grounds to renege on what she'd said over the weekend, regardless of what he actually says in it.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
Surely calling for defenestration is grounds for it?
Catherine West has said she will do this: (Guardian)
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
She will magically decide Starmer's speech is grounds to renege on what she'd said over the weekend, regardless of what he actually says in it.
"Having listened to the Prime Minister and after discussing with colleagues, I agree that now is not the time for action, and actually secretive maneuvering in cloak filled rooms is the way this should be handled."
Surely calling for defenestration is grounds for it?
Catherine West has said she will do this: (Guardian)
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
She will magically decide Starmer's speech is grounds to renege on what she'd said over the weekend, regardless of what he actually says in it.
"Having listened to the Prime Minister and after discussing with colleagues, I agree that now is not the time for action, and actually secretive maneuvering in cloak filled rooms is the way this should be handled."
Surely calling for defenestration is grounds for it?
Catherine West has said she will do this: (Guardian)
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
She will magically decide Starmer's speech is grounds to renege on what she'd said over the weekend, regardless of what he actually says in it.
"Having listened to the Prime Minister and after discussing with colleagues, I agree that now is not the time for action, and actually secretive maneuvering in cloak filled rooms is the way this should be handled."
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
Yes, I thought initially that the complaint was about the West Ham goalkeeper and there didn't seem to be much in that. But there was a hand across the throat of De Raya which I did not see originally and that is the difference between the block and a grab.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I entirely agree with you but neither my agreement nor your comments begin to address my questions!
it's been a long afternoon for those of us who want Arsenal to come top and West Ham to stay up. Compared with which coping with trivia like who is the next PM and when seems quite easy.
Yes, I thought initially that the complaint was about the West Ham goalkeeper and there didn't seem to be much in that. But there was a hand across the throat of De Raya which I did not see originally and that is the difference between the block and a grab.
Dont suppose Rice holding west ham player deserved looking at
VAR is a corrupt system as those operating it can't do what is required of them.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I entirely agree with you but neither my agreement nor your comments begin to address my questions!
it's been a long afternoon for those of us who want Arsenal to come top and West Ham to stay up. Compared with which coping with trivia like who is the next PM and when seems quite easy.
It has been pretty tense and I feel sorry for West Ham. But to try to answer your questions more directly:
As I have said our political class signed up and remains signed up to the UN Conventions on Refugees. These Conventions, and domestic legislation seeking to implement them, give rights to people arriving here, however they got here, from hell holes around the planet of which there are depressingly many. This is the case whether they actually arrive here from France or any other "safe" country that they may have travelled through. I know why these Conventions came into force. They came into force because many felt horrible guilt after WW2 that they had turned away Jewish refugees from Germany who ended in concentration camps. Never again was the belief.
But we live in a vastly more mobile world with even more hell holes than before. I think we need to be more selective. We need to say, for example, that we offer sanctuary to those from Hong Kong or Ukraine but not those from Somalia, Ethiopia, Libya or Syria. This needs to be our choice and our decision and it is a political decision not a legal one. Those from those countries need to be sent home. It is not our fault that they come from a hell hole. And when that message gets through perhaps they will stop coming.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh. ... With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together. ... This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
I don't see Reform as civic nationalists, with religion privatised.
Their most prominent commentator is Danny Kruger, who is explicit that the public square be defined by religion, which is part of his National Conservative philosophy. As far as I can see he is the lead Reform commentator on this question - although Matt Goodwin has also described Reform as a National Conservative party. I have not heard a view from Farage.
Kruger addressed this in his prominent Commons speech on 25 July 2025:
Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-07-17a.520.0&s=speaker:25913+-section:wrans+speaker:25913#g520.2
(That is before Kruger crossed the floor, but he still pursues the same themes, slowly becoming more nuanced.)
I find Kruger's version of English history quite romantic, almost like Arthur Mee, and a firmer assertion of the public square as based on religion than we have seen since Queen Victoria. I'd agree with you on Restore UK being a very different kettle of fish.
The historical position has been that the presence of an established Church of England has allowed for freedom of religion, rather than preventing it. I think that Danny Kruger subscribes broadly to this notion.
Growing expectation that a Labour MP will quit over the next few days to trigger a by-election so Andy Burnham can return to Westminster.
A few names have been circulating for a while.
All eyes on the next 48 hours 👀
Perhaps it will all work out brilliantly. As the tension grows, so too does the interest and anticipation. It's not hard to imagine the whole country getting swept up in it, rooting for or against, feeling emotionally invested in the fate of this man Burnham.
He argues for a return to the pre-1998 situation before judicial activism where a decision is only overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have foreseen it.
I think he misses one important point: politicians liked handing things off to judges, because it enabled them to escape responsibility for unpopular decisions.
Sure, and the consequences of that have ultimately been catastrophic to politicians so, if they've learned their lesson, shouldn't we welcome that?
I think the Rwanda policy was simply mad and an astonishing waste of scarce resources but Sunak is right that one of the reasons the mainstream parties died on Thursday is because people get completely fed up of governments who simply can't solve a problem.
I think he is also right in saying that the problems governments have is the interventionist role played by our courts but he completely fails to recognise that it is politicians who have given the courts both the power and duty to do that.
The answer to me is much more fundamental. It is withdrawal from the Convention on Refugees and passing legislation that those who come here by boat without our permission will simply be ejected because they have no rights whatsoever. But our political class are simply not up for that kind of law. Its much easier to blame the courts for enforcing the laws they passed.
++++++++
Having now been to Rwanda - last week - I can say with some authority that: it would likely have worked, if enacted properly
Rwanda is actually a perfect choice for such a scheme, in the absence of a handy but bleak nearby island, as the Australians had
It is a long long long way away. It is locked up in central Africa. It is poor and in some places grim, you really don't want to live there. But it it also stable and safe, so you can humanely send people there, if all these people care about is being safe (and that is supposedly the situation with asylum seekers, unless of course they are fake and just looking for better benefits and economic opportunity)
I reckon HMG would have solved the boats overnight if they'd managed to get a few hundred people there, but done it intensely - ie shipping 90% of arrivals in one month. That would have terrified the boat people and the boats would have stopped
Exactly. And there we have it: Rwanda would have worked.
Sunak simply didn't have enough time to overcome all the legal obstacles and political resistance.
Growing expectation that a Labour MP will quit over the next few days to trigger a by-election so Andy Burnham can return to Westminster.
A few names have been circulating for a while.
All eyes on the next 48 hours 👀
Perhaps it will all work out brilliantly. As the tension grows, so too does the interest and anticipation. It's not hard to imagine the whole country getting swept up in it, rooting for or against, feeling emotionally invested in the fate of this man Burnham.
Maybe he'll keep on trying and losing in repeated by-elections while the leadership candidates keep holding off until he finally wins one. Starmer could survive indefinitely.
Comments
I would just add a few things. Don't make it all stick, offer some carrot too
eg if you join the armed forces, then that should count as a credit, and the process is speeded up. If you create notable wealth, ditto. Make it easier for truly productive, truly loyal people to gain that citizenship
This isn't a question of IF or WHETHER, either. Such is the scale of the Boriswave and recent migration in general, and such is the scale of their dependency on benefits, if we don't tighten things up dramatically, the nation will go bankrupt and we will all be eating rats. And @nico67 and @maxh won't have time to signal their virtues or speculate on the concept of nationhood, as they will be fighting in the rubble
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
On the left of the party the thought of replacing Sir Keir Starmer with Wes Streeting is a seen as bit like soiling your trousers and choosing to replace only your hat. Andy Burnham realises an early contest rules him out.
is slightly reminiscent of a great passage in Pepys, where on 7th October 1660 he writes in connection with the rumour that James, Duke of York had got Anne Hyde pregnant out of wedlock:
"My Lord told me that among his father's many old sayings that he had writ in a book of his, this is one: that he that doth get a wench with child and marries her afterward it is as if a man should shit in his hat and then clap it upon his head."
It wouldn't even have needed a 90% removal rate. Probably only 20%. If you have a one in five chance of being deported to Rwanda after paying £3-4k to a smuggling gang that your family back home will be hounded for then you're probably not going to take the risk.
The first two or three planes being broadcast far and wide across Africa and Asia would have probably been enough IMO to stop it and then a constant trickle of continued deportations.
As I said at the time, all illegal arrivals should have been offered voluntary return to their home country or forced deportation to Rwanda. It should have been made clear that there was no scenario where staying in the UK was an option. The Tories were too weak to face down the unelected judges and bureaucracy.
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
And with that, adieu. Kids dinner calls.
PS In case you missed it earlier, sorry for being an arse. I would feel equally aggrieved if I was told I held an opinion that I had just said I didn't.
PPS just seen your reply to my musing/virtue signalling. I am delighted to own the badge of being somewhat unusual.
I agree. I'd like to get back to applying the law universally without fear or favour. I actually think it would be better for communities that these sorts of crimes affect disproportionately. But I don't get the feeling that you are against 'community policing' and other euphemisms meaning unequal and derisory application of the law. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The problem is, Keir Starmer has proved he has no capability to know WHAT or HOW to change the country.
I do think S4C has had a lot to do with it.
Anyway, I am content Reform were a country mile behind them.
Senior Andy Burnham source messages:
"A chaotic election or coronation which is divisive and hostile is in neither the country’s nor the Party’s interest.
The process needs to be orderly, managed and inclusive.
You can see from his time in Greater Manchester that Andy is by nature inclusive and he has been speaking to many people across the movement.
The awful results in Greater Manchester were compounded by the decision of the Party to block Andy from the Gorton & Denton by-election. But it is clear that Andy could win a by-election and seats are available".
Urgh I’m going off him again. Why must we all wait for Burnham?
Your musings on nationhood are interesting, don't stop just because people disagree
Enjoy your dinner!
++++++
I agree, This is Sunak trying to rewrite history. He didn't have the hairy bollocks to push this through, he should stop blaming judges, and accept his culpability
It makes me think slightly less of him
Had they not done so Burnham would already be an MP and the Greens would be one MP down
If the DVLA send me a letter telling me I'm getting banned because they simply want less drivers on the road, then I'm going to the solicitors.
One of May's problems as PM (and I think the rhyme with Starmer is compelling) is that she got the top job "by accident" over the heads of people who thought they deserved it more and weren't going to let it lie. The other issue is that May and Starmer both floundered with solving tradeoffs that their rivals simply ignored, but that's another story. But the ego problem in politics (you need a massive ego to even want to climb the ladder but you're then expected to swallow that ego to be an effective team player) is hard to solve.
The law is the law. ILR is not citizenship. It CAN be revoked on several grounds, and it can be revoked merely because the government wishes to do so. And people who get ILR are told this
Is is cruel to revoke it? Perhaps. But life is often cruel, and the British people have rights as well. They have the right to say: Sorry, you cannot stay, we are indeed going to revoke your status, and you were warned that could happen
I don't see Reform as civic nationalists, with religion privatised.
Their most prominent commentator is Danny Kruger, who is explicit that the public square be defined by religion, which is part of his National Conservative philosophy. As far as I can see he is the lead Reform commentator on this question - although Matt Goodwin has also described Reform as a National Conservative party. I have not heard a view from Farage.
Kruger addressed this in his prominent Commons speech on 25 July 2025:
Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-07-17a.520.0&s=speaker:25913+-section:wrans+speaker:25913#g520.2
(That is before Kruger crossed the floor, but he still pursues the same themes, slowly becoming more nuanced.)
I find Kruger's version of English history quite romantic, almost like Arthur Mee, and a firmer assertion of the public square as based on religion than we have seen since Queen Victoria. I'd agree with you on Restore UK being a very different kettle of fish.
If you want to argue that many laws are too vague and can be extended to scenarios where we don't want them to apply- fine. But there's still a duty to work out what the limits are.
The discontent is partly a perception that British politicians neither like nor value Britain and neither like nor value many of its inhabitants. I don't care one way or the other whether a politician has a flag behind him when he speaks. I tend to dislike it because it feels so insincere most of the time. But I bloody well do want politicians to behave and talk as if they know, understand and care for this country and the people in it, even the unfashionable ones living in out of the way places. I want them to show some interest and curiosity in these people, some realisation that they are more interesting, savvy and thoughtful than many assume and that they need to feel that they have stake here and that the country has a stake in them and concern for them.
That is missing in our politics. And was, if you don't mind me saying so, somewhat missing in your original post - though your later posts show that this is perhaps unfair.
There is a very de haut en bas contempt for ordinary people on this forum. But ordinary people are interesting if you bother to make the effort. The political class has stopped making the effort.
Have you not seen which Lab Politician is best able to defeat Reform
Clue its not SKS, Streeting or Rayner
He's an arrogant entitled tw*t.
Go west Life is peaceful there
Go west Lots of open air
Go west To begin life new
Go west This is what we'll do
(Although he is not as crap as Dan thinks).
Wicket Maiden
Dont get many of those in IPL
The Welsh concept of 'Gwlad', and indeed or 'Hiraeth' (sp?) is helpful here.
An important feature of 'home' is that other people who live there also consider it home. It is jarring to feel strongly about somewhere whose other residenta are just passing through.
https://x.com/AngelaRayner/status/2053505486306046248
Catherine West, a Labour backbencher, has already said she’ll challenge the prime minister for leadership on Monday if he does not set out timetable to resign. Separately, about 40 MPs have already called on Starmer to step down or set out an exit plan.
Prediction: She won't.
I think by tomorrow she will be 24 hours into a black hole from which she may emerge in time.
The fact he's still refereeing shows how much a joke our refs are.
Boring Boring Arsenal
it's been a long afternoon for those of us who want Arsenal to come top and West Ham to stay up. Compared with which coping with trivia like who is the next PM and when seems quite easy.
This is a PGMOL title.
https://x.com/LFCTransferRoom/status/2053530525499883658
Growing expectation that a Labour MP will quit over the next few days to trigger a by-election so Andy Burnham can return to Westminster.
A few names have been circulating for a while.
All eyes on the next 48 hours 👀
VAR is a corrupt system as those operating it can't do what is required of them.
As I have said our political class signed up and remains signed up to the UN Conventions on Refugees. These Conventions, and domestic legislation seeking to implement them, give rights to people arriving here, however they got here, from hell holes around the planet of which there are depressingly many. This is the case whether they actually arrive here from France or any other "safe" country that they may have travelled through. I know why these Conventions came into force. They came into force because many felt horrible guilt after WW2 that they had turned away Jewish refugees from Germany who ended in concentration camps. Never again was the belief.
But we live in a vastly more mobile world with even more hell holes than before. I think we need to be more selective. We need to say, for example, that we offer sanctuary to those from Hong Kong or Ukraine but not those from Somalia, Ethiopia, Libya or Syria. This needs to be our choice and our decision and it is a political decision not a legal one. Those from those countries need to be sent home. It is not our fault that they come from a hell hole. And when that message gets through perhaps they will stop coming.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/local-elections-in-london-2026/
Not been your week has it?
Sure, and the consequences of that have ultimately been catastrophic to politicians so, if they've learned their lesson, shouldn't we welcome that?
Gaps out east - the first numbers are trickling through from Newham - the Stratford Ward was won by the Greens from Labour on a swing of 27.7%.
Having now been to Rwanda - last week - I can say with some authority that: it would likely have worked, if enacted properly
Rwanda is actually a perfect choice for such a scheme, in the absence of a handy but bleak nearby island, as the Australians had
It is a long long long way away. It is locked up in central Africa. It is poor and in some places grim, you really don't want to live there. But it it also stable and safe, so you can humanely send people there, if all these people care about is being safe (and that is supposedly the situation with asylum seekers, unless of course they are fake and just looking for better benefits and economic opportunity)
I reckon HMG would have solved the boats overnight if they'd managed to get a few hundred people there, but done it intensely - ie shipping 90% of arrivals in one month. That would have terrified the boat people and the boats would have stopped
Exactly. And there we have it: Rwanda would have worked.
Sunak simply didn't have enough time to overcome all the legal obstacles and political resistance.