Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound Yes, I get it, you all hate Tony Blair etc you’ll find loads to disagree with here I’m sure - but the quality of analysis of our problems and what any potential leader ought to be thinking about if they want to solve them puts this essay light years ahead of what any current contender for national leadership has offered. Anyone who wants to be an effective prime minister (including the current one) should read it
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
Well, I agree with him at least 33%.
"WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats;" - from the Prime Minister whose government "rubbed the right's nose in multiculturalism"
"BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget"; - from the Prime Minister whose Chancellor announced a remarkably similar national insurance rise in 2002
"DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills" - from the Prime Minister whose government drafted the disastrous Climate Change Act.
Blair's complete lack of self-awareness and total hypocrisy would be beyond belief, except of course that we had to put up with it for a decade.
Still gives me a sick feeling whenever I see his toothless grin, and a yearning to get it wiped off his face with an investigation into the sources of his tens of millions.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
Hold on a second...
The only time the government decided that asylum was all too difficult was the fag end of the Conservative government.
They largely did give up on trying to process arrivals, which is why we ended up warehousing people wherever space could be bought at disgraceful financial and human cost.
And you know what? Doing the boring stuff better is helping in a way that shouting "Rwanda" didn't. Numbers are fairly solidly down over the last 12 months or so. Still too high, but well down. A thousand over 4 days is way better than a thousand a day.
But to return to my main thought. Harold Wilson was not writing think-tank essays telling Blair what to do in 1997. Partly because he was dead, but mostly because there shouldn't be many things more ex- than an ex-Prime Minister.
Blair was the last PM to get a handle on the civil service.
I'd be ringing him daily asking him to give lessons on it to every minister....
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound Yes, I get it, you all hate Tony Blair etc you’ll find loads to disagree with here I’m sure - but the quality of analysis of our problems and what any potential leader ought to be thinking about if they want to solve them puts this essay light years ahead of what any current contender for national leadership has offered. Anyone who wants to be an effective prime minister (including the current one) should read it
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
Exhibit 10035 as to why Labour are polling somewhere between 17-20%......
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
Hold on a second...
The only time the government decided that asylum was all too difficult was the fag end of the Conservative government.
They largely did give up on trying to process arrivals, which is why we ended up warehousing people wherever space could be bought at disgraceful financial and human cost.
And you know what? Doing the boring stuff better is helping in a way that shouting "Rwanda" didn't. Numbers are fairly solidly down over the last 12 months or so. Still too high, but well down. A thousand over 4 days is way better than a thousand a day.
But to return to my main thought. Harold Wilson was not writing think-tank essays telling Blair what to do in 1997. Partly because he was dead, but mostly because there shouldn't be many things more ex- than an ex-Prime Minister.
Blair was the last PM to get a handle on the civil service.
I'd be ringing him daily asking him to give lessons on it to every minister....
It took him seven years though. After two he very much hadn't.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
The problem is that significant numbers of those immigrants have a good enough story that they would qualify for refugee status - hence why we haven't rushed to have overseas processing centres - they would result in 10 times as many applicants and probably twice as many valid refugees arriving.
And yes I know that for processing centre you meant Rwanda but you should be clearer...
Gah. Another 'if only we could do something' - the something is change the terms of qualification. MASSIVE MAJORITY and still they won't do anything.
The terms of qualification are international law - it's rather difficult to override that
You mean the 75 year old convention designed for a world with far less mobility than today? The one that basically has no penalities if it is ignored?
The penalties are not ingrained in the law as the consequences are in how other countries react to your behaviour.
But the best way to deal with the boats would be to offer Farage a cabinet post with £1bn of funding and tell him to get on with sorting out the issue - and watch him fail.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
Exhibit 10035 as to why Labour are polling somewhere between 17-20%......
The public are as irrational and ill-informed as you, you mean?
Could well be. But leaders should lead not pander.
Violent men are very often violent in a domestic setting.
Joan Smith has written a whole book - Home Grown - about how so many terrorists, US gun killers and the like have a history of domestic violence and often embark on violence against the women closest to them before embarking on their more public sprees of violence. It's not though something which can only be laid at the door of those of any particular political persuasion, as you seem to imply. It applies to Islamist terrorists, left-wing terrorists, right-wing ones, mass murderers etc. The common factor is men and domestic violence against women, which is overlooked and not dealt with.
Indeed.
A simple truth - scumbags are never angels who suddenly went bad. It’s never their first crime. They serve a scumbag apprenticeship. They practise.
I was once at a talk by an anti-terrorism policeman. He said they hardly every arrested anyone on anti-terrorism charges as theya re hard to prove. They would just keep an eye on the until they could catch them in the act of something else (e.g. firearms possession) and send them away for a stretch. Nearly all active terrorists are scumbags anyway, apparently.
You must read A Big Boy Did it And Ran Away, which contains the following wisdom:
All terrorists are wankers. Whatever flags they wrapped themselves in, whatever religions, histories or myths they attached to their crusades, they were, to a man, just wankers. They told themselves and anyone bored enough to listen that they were in it for the glory of their cause or the welfare of their ‘people’ (few of whom were ever consulted about this), but the truth was that they were in it because they liked killing people. Every last fucking one of them.
Tony Blair arguably returning Labour to its comfort zone - infighting.
Lots to chew over but did anyone else spot the drive-by against Gordon Brown, known in the Blairite code as just “2007”, and then linking / blaming him for Jeremy Corbyn….
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
Exhibit 10035 as to why Labour are polling somewhere between 17-20%......
The public are as irrational and ill-informed as you, you mean?
Could well be. But leaders should lead not pander.
The public care more about principles such as fairness, and waiting in line, than most of those involved in left wing politics, it seems.....
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot · 1h Full story here - with extraordinary quotes from a former prime minister slamming the paucity of ideas from his Labour successors
Carol Vorderman has demanded an apology from the Reform UK candidate in the upcoming Makerfield byelection for “disgusting comments” he made about her on social media in the past.
The broadcaster and former Countdown numbers expert described Robert Kenyon, who Reform has backed to face Andy Burnham in next month’s vote, as a “cowardly man” for a series of offensive posts made by the Wigan councillor that have since been deleted, along with his account.
Vorderman, who last week posted a video in which she described Kenyon as a misogynist who made “disgusting comments”, told the Daily Mirror on Tuesday that she wanted “an apology from Rob Kenyon, to me, and to all the other people he’s abused online”.
In 2021, Kenyon responded to a social media post about Vorderman in which another user wrote: “My god I’d love to smell and lick your arsehole”, by saying: “He’s only saying what we’re all thinking”.
Danny Kruger, who joined Reform last September, defended Kenyon’s comments, telling BBC Radio 4 on Monday that while they were “inappropriate”, they were not viewed as serious enough within the party for Kenyon to be pulled as their byelection candidate. Kruger said he was “not going to judge people for what are essentially regarded at the time and intended as private conversations”.
Kruger was put up to do the talking about this - perhaps Reform's only talking head who wouldn't look as if he was a bit amused by it all - and appeared to be trying to be solemn in a hostage video, and very obviously thought this fellow Kenyon was such an oik that he hardly remembered which year he left Eton.
At what point in proceedings will it become clear to Kruger, who is decent and bright, that he has made a monumental error of judgment?
I've met Kruger, he seems to be thoughtful and has some deep convictions, but I think for that very reason having made the decision to switch he is not likely to rethink his situation any time soon, and is more likely to double down. Those with deeply held convictions may switch less often, but probably commit a lot more when they do.
As far as I am aware Kruger has never been convicted or even charged.
I notice that YouTube automatic subtitles have become so good that they're now able to pick up quite a lot of music lyrics/vocals, even ones from the 60s/70s/80s.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
Exhibit 10035 as to why Labour are polling somewhere between 17-20%......
The public are as irrational and ill-informed as you, you mean?
Could well be. But leaders should lead not pander.
The public care more about principles such as fairness, and waiting in line, than most of those involved in left wing politics, it seems.....
Everyone wants to resolve this issue except for 2 groups:
Open border ideologues - who don't see it as a problem.
The Right - who need it to fuel grievance.
And one of these groups is far larger and more influential than the other.
Richard Burgon MP @RichardBurgon · 34m Tony Blair has nothing to offer Labour in 2026.
His neoliberalism, backing of endless wars and acceptance of inequality are exactly what Labour must break from if it wants to rebuild support and defeat the far-right.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
Hold on a second...
The only time the government decided that asylum was all too difficult was the fag end of the Conservative government.
They largely did give up on trying to process arrivals, which is why we ended up warehousing people wherever space could be bought at disgraceful financial and human cost.
And you know what? Doing the boring stuff better is helping in a way that shouting "Rwanda" didn't. Numbers are fairly solidly down over the last 12 months or so. Still too high, but well down. A thousand over 4 days is way better than a thousand a day.
But to return to my main thought. Harold Wilson was not writing think-tank essays telling Blair what to do in 1997. Partly because he was dead, but mostly because there shouldn't be many things more ex- than an ex-Prime Minister.
Blair was the last PM to get a handle on the civil service.
I'd be ringing him daily asking him to give lessons on it to every minister....
No Cameron did at first, too. In the sense that civil service numbers were steadily declining during the Coalition , and until June 2016. Then everything went to shit (anyone remember what happened then?) and we now employ about 100,000 more civil servants than we did at that point. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
Hold on a second...
The only time the government decided that asylum was all too difficult was the fag end of the Conservative government.
They largely did give up on trying to process arrivals, which is why we ended up warehousing people wherever space could be bought at disgraceful financial and human cost.
And you know what? Doing the boring stuff better is helping in a way that shouting "Rwanda" didn't. Numbers are fairly solidly down over the last 12 months or so. Still too high, but well down. A thousand over 4 days is way better than a thousand a day.
But to return to my main thought. Harold Wilson was not writing think-tank essays telling Blair what to do in 1997. Partly because he was dead, but mostly because there shouldn't be many things more ex- than an ex-Prime Minister.
Blair was the last PM to get a handle on the civil service.
I'd be ringing him daily asking him to give lessons on it to every minister....
No Cameron did at first, too. In the sense that civil service numbers were steadily declining during the Coalition , and until June 2016. Then everything went to shit (anyone remember what happened then?) and we now employ about 100,000 more civil servants than we did at that point. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers
Theresa May rather than Brexit itself would have to be the reason for the turnaround. We hired more additional civil servants than the entire staff of the European institutions put together so it can't be explained by needing to replicate their functions.
“This... feels very much like the Tony Blair of his 3rd term when he pursued what allies used to call was his flying F strategy... he didn’t give a flying F for what his party thought as he delivered home truths”
@nicholaswatt on Sir Tony Blair's Labour intervention
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
He's 100% right about the boats. Farage and Lowe wouldn't exist as political figures if this problem had been sorted earlier.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
Asylum shouldn't be an immigration pathway, full stop. The correct answer is a discretionary system where we choose whom to invite.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
"Stop accepting legitimate asylum seekers and instead get $OTHER_COUNTRY to take them" is a different policy to the one @rcs1000 suggested.
In the US, an op-ed is short for "opposite the editorial page". It's a contribution from someone not on the staff, usually offering an opinion that differs from one held, openly, by anyone on the staff.
If I recall correctly, Bari Weiss left her job at the NYT because they were unwilling to publish an op-ed by Tom Cotton. (Which Weiss diagreed with, but thought it a common enough belief that it deserved some space.)
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
Deeply corrupt paedophile protector, who gave a plea bargain to a child rapist that saw him serve only two months in prison.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
I want to thank Senator John Cornyn for his years representing our state.
We don’t agree on everything, but we both still believe in public service.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
What I think policy here needs to distinguish is, are you trying to solve actual problems (cost-effectively) or are you trying to get something that you can persuade the voters is the severed head of Glonzo.
If it's the first one then what you suggest might be helpful but I'd be kind of amazed if the cost of bribing $OTHER_COUNTRY to accept this processing center, building and running it, flying everybody over there, flying some of them back, and flying all the Home Office people back and forth wasn't wildly higher than the supposed benefits dissuading whatever proportion of the people in small boats it dissuades.
If it's the second one then you have to ask the question, will they actually be satisfied that you've killed Glonzo. I think the answer to that is no, because there will still be boats and they'll still be in the papers. The government have already reduced the number of boats and massively reduced net migration, and as far as I can tell got absolutely zero credit for it.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
What I think policy here needs to distinguish is, are you trying to solve actual problems (cost-effectively) or are you trying to get something that you can persuade the voters is the severed head of Glonzo.
If it's the first one then what you suggest might be helpful but I'd be kind of amazed if the cost of bribing $OTHER_COUNTRY to accept this processing center, building and running it, flying everybody over there, flying some of them back, and flying all the Home Office people back and forth wasn't wildly higher than the supposed benefits dissuading whatever proportion of the people in small boats it dissuades.
If it's the second one then you have to ask the question, will they actually be satisfied that you've killed Glonzo. I think the answer to that is no, because there will still be boats and they'll still be in the papers. The government have already reduced the number of boats and massively reduced net migration, and as far as I can tell got absolutely zero credit for it.
The number of boat crossings is still at a historically high level. The reason they're not getting any credit is that they haven't done anything to deserve it.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
I don't know, perhaps an overseas processing centre? Perhaps coming out of the ECHR? Perhaps criminalising arriving without a passport? Perhaps deem small boat arrivals a terror risk. But no, the midwit process driving centrists just want to wring hands and say it is all too difficult.
There are so many things that could be done, which are not being done.
'midwit process driving centrists'
You've been hanging out with that weird online right crowd, haven't you.
Just fed up of the handwringing. It is eroding the social contract and shows us up as a nation to be absolute fools.
The fact that so many cannot see this fascinates me.
But we don't get a particularly high number of asylum seekers compared to many other countries inc in Europe. Several get more. It's just that we're an island and since the lorry route was plugged they use these very visible boats. It's a problem, of course it is, but it's nonsense to say it shows we're fools or is trashing the social contract. That's just totally ott.
Exhibit 10035 as to why Labour are polling somewhere between 17-20%......
The public are as irrational and ill-informed as you, you mean?
Could well be. But leaders should lead not pander.
The public care more about principles such as fairness, and waiting in line, than most of those involved in left wing politics, it seems.....
Everyone wants to resolve this issue except for 2 groups:
Open border ideologues - who don't see it as a problem.
The Right - who need it to fuel grievance.
And one of these groups is far larger and more influential than the other.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
What I think policy here needs to distinguish is, are you trying to solve actual problems (cost-effectively) or are you trying to get something that you can persuade the voters is the severed head of Glonzo.
If it's the first one then what you suggest might be helpful but I'd be kind of amazed if the cost of bribing $OTHER_COUNTRY to accept this processing center, building and running it, flying everybody over there, flying some of them back, and flying all the Home Office people back and forth wasn't wildly higher than the supposed benefits dissuading whatever proportion of the people in small boats it dissuades.
If it's the second one then you have to ask the question, will they actually be satisfied that you've killed Glonzo. I think the answer to that is no, because there will still be boats and they'll still be in the papers. The government have already reduced the number of boats and massively reduced net migration, and as far as I can tell got absolutely zero credit for it.
Labour must fix small boats to have a chance in the next election has been a take that has aged badly. Down ~35% this year, nobody knows or cares.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
Set it up in France? Then there's no need to cross.
Carol Vorderman has demanded an apology from the Reform UK candidate in the upcoming Makerfield byelection for “disgusting comments” he made about her on social media in the past.
The broadcaster and former Countdown numbers expert described Robert Kenyon, who Reform has backed to face Andy Burnham in next month’s vote, as a “cowardly man” for a series of offensive posts made by the Wigan councillor that have since been deleted, along with his account.
Vorderman, who last week posted a video in which she described Kenyon as a misogynist who made “disgusting comments”, told the Daily Mirror on Tuesday that she wanted “an apology from Rob Kenyon, to me, and to all the other people he’s abused online”.
In 2021, Kenyon responded to a social media post about Vorderman in which another user wrote: “My god I’d love to smell and lick your arsehole”, by saying: “He’s only saying what we’re all thinking”.
Danny Kruger, who joined Reform last September, defended Kenyon’s comments, telling BBC Radio 4 on Monday that while they were “inappropriate”, they were not viewed as serious enough within the party for Kenyon to be pulled as their byelection candidate. Kruger said he was “not going to judge people for what are essentially regarded at the time and intended as private conversations”.
Kruger was put up to do the talking about this - perhaps Reform's only talking head who wouldn't look as if he was a bit amused by it all - and appeared to be trying to be solemn in a hostage video, and very obviously thought this fellow Kenyon was such an oik that he hardly remembered which year he left Eton.
At what point in proceedings will it become clear to Kruger, who is decent and bright, that he has made a monumental error of judgment?
Kruger was a real hope for Reform if he was able to make a contribution. But ...
Reform will be dangerous when they can scale up. At the moment they haven't the ground game to deliver and are simply relying on media support - paid and unpaid.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
The Australian solution entailed that if a legitimate application is approved for someone who arrived via a boat, then they have the right to remain . . . in the nation they were offshore processed in.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
Here's my theory: don't let great be the enemy of good; implement what can be done quickly, and efficacously, and with the minimum of hassle.
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
Set it up in France? Then there's no need to cross.
Apparently about 60% of small boat asylum applications are accepted. So a processing centre in France would presumably cut trips by at least 60%.
It would probably mean taking in more asylum seekers...
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
No-one likes a back seat driver, especially one presumably motivated by keeping his fellow PM pal in office.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Indeed. Increasingly I think he just got lucky in 1997. A tired tory govt, but inherited a strong economy, a helpful US president and a Chancellor who saved him from some of his more idiotic ideas like the euro.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Closer to Trump is difficult when Trump changes his mind every day.
Presumably Blair means "join in with another Mid East war with unclear exit strategy".
That is a winner only in the mind of someone willing to be part of Trumps risible "Board of Peace".
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Indeed. Increasingly I think he just got lucky in 1997. A tired tory govt, but inherited a strong economy, a helpful US president and a Chancellor who saved him from some of his more idiotic ideas like the euro.
I think that a bit unfair. Blair was a charismatic speaker. I saw him first hand in 1997 at a rally in Derby. He really had the zeitgeist.
But like those pining for Maggie, it was a different age with different problems.
Like Morrisey, or John Lydon the descent into irrelevance eclipses their moment and tarnishes it.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Closer to Trump is difficult when Trump changes his mind every day.
Presumably Blair means "join in with another Mid East war with unclear exit strategy".
That is a winner only in the mind of someone willing to be part of Trumps risible "Board of Peace".
Maybe he's signed up to Trump's nuclear exit strategy?
And dear God, doesn't Blair look OLD? As if the MAD kid had suddenly got to 90.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
Deeply corrupt paedophile protector, who gave a plea bargain to a child rapist that saw him serve only two months in prison.
On brand for Trump's MAGA.
I eagerly await the ‘it’s all the libs’ fault for forcing good, honest Republicans to back someone like Paxton’ lads.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Indeed. Increasingly I think he just got lucky in 1997. A tired tory govt, but inherited a strong economy, a helpful US president and a Chancellor who saved him from some of his more idiotic ideas like the euro.
All successful political leaders are lucky to some extent. Thatcher was lucky that Labour tore itself to pieces in the 80s and the Falklands War gave her cover at a difficult moment with her party. Churchill was lucky that the first actual shots fired by Britain in WWII were against Germany not Japan. Wilson was lucky in facing Home rather than Hailsham, Maudling or Butler.
The test of a political leader, as Robert Blake noted, is the ability to exploit that luck. From that point of view love him or loathe him we could say of Tony Blair, channelling Edward Heath on Wilson, that he was a tremendous politician if perhaps never quite a statesman.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Violent men are very often violent in a domestic setting.
Joan Smith has written a whole book - Home Grown - about how so many terrorists, US gun killers and the like have a history of domestic violence and often embark on violence against the women closest to them before embarking on their more public sprees of violence. It's not though something which can only be laid at the door of those of any particular political persuasion, as you seem to imply. It applies to Islamist terrorists, left-wing terrorists, right-wing ones, mass murderers etc. The common factor is men and domestic violence against women, which is overlooked and not dealt with.
Indeed.
A simple truth - scumbags are never angels who suddenly went bad. It’s never their first crime. They serve a scumbag apprenticeship. They practise.
I was once at a talk by an anti-terrorism policeman. He said they hardly every arrested anyone on anti-terrorism charges as theya re hard to prove. They would just keep an eye on the until they could catch them in the act of something else (e.g. firearms possession) and send them away for a stretch. Nearly all active terrorists are scumbags anyway, apparently.
You must read A Big Boy Did it And Ran Away, which contains the following wisdom:
All terrorists are wankers. Whatever flags they wrapped themselves in, whatever religions, histories or myths they attached to their crusades, they were, to a man, just wankers. They told themselves and anyone bored enough to listen that they were in it for the glory of their cause or the welfare of their ‘people’ (few of whom were ever consulted about this), but the truth was that they were in it because they liked killing people. Every last fucking one of them.
I imagine that means a state born out of terrorism would pretty much have wankerism baked in,
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Closer to Trump is difficult when Trump changes his mind every day.
Presumably Blair means "join in with another Mid East war with unclear exit strategy".
That is a winner only in the mind of someone willing to be part of Trumps risible "Board of Peace".
The partnership with the USA is weaker. To be clear, we were never asked to ‘join’ America’s military action in Iran and, never having been part of the planning for such a mission, could not have been part of it. The initial request was simply for the use of our military bases for the refuelling of American planes. I understand the reasons for refusal but it’s not the best way to treat our ally. ... We have forgotten an essential lesson not just of diplomacy but of power politics: if you want to play you have to be sat at the table. And bring something to the table.
I know how hard it is to be an ally of the USA. We were its staunchest supporter post 9/11. We went through Afghanistan and Iraq together. But it mattered deeply to America and so it mattered to us also. America remains the indispensable core of Britain’s security alliance. But staying with it means even when it is difficult or unpopular. ... For the American relationship, that means building defence capability and being prepared politically to argue for the alliance even when controversial, of which Iran is the latest example. https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/the-labour-party-is-playing-with-fire-over-its-future-and-the-future-of-the-country
Violent men are very often violent in a domestic setting.
Joan Smith has written a whole book - Home Grown - about how so many terrorists, US gun killers and the like have a history of domestic violence and often embark on violence against the women closest to them before embarking on their more public sprees of violence. It's not though something which can only be laid at the door of those of any particular political persuasion, as you seem to imply. It applies to Islamist terrorists, left-wing terrorists, right-wing ones, mass murderers etc. The common factor is men and domestic violence against women, which is overlooked and not dealt with.
Indeed.
A simple truth - scumbags are never angels who suddenly went bad. It’s never their first crime. They serve a scumbag apprenticeship. They practise.
I was once at a talk by an anti-terrorism policeman. He said they hardly every arrested anyone on anti-terrorism charges as theya re hard to prove. They would just keep an eye on the until they could catch them in the act of something else (e.g. firearms possession) and send them away for a stretch. Nearly all active terrorists are scumbags anyway, apparently.
You must read A Big Boy Did it And Ran Away, which contains the following wisdom:
All terrorists are wankers. Whatever flags they wrapped themselves in, whatever religions, histories or myths they attached to their crusades, they were, to a man, just wankers. They told themselves and anyone bored enough to listen that they were in it for the glory of their cause or the welfare of their ‘people’ (few of whom were ever consulted about this), but the truth was that they were in it because they liked killing people. Every last fucking one of them.
I imagine that means a state born out of terrorism would pretty much have wankerism baked in,
So the British state, born out of bribery, has corruption built in?
Tories go cold on air conditioning ban in new homes Shadow energy secretary says party would ditch rules that leave families ‘suffering unnecessarily’ in heat ... The legal underpinning for the de facto air conditioning ban is in an update to the Building Regulations introduced by the Tories in 2021.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Indeed. Increasingly I think he just got lucky in 1997. A tired tory govt, but inherited a strong economy, a helpful US president and a Chancellor who saved him from some of his more idiotic ideas like the euro.
I think that a bit unfair. Blair was a charismatic speaker. I saw him first hand in 1997 at a rally in Derby. He really had the zeitgeist.
But like those pining for Maggie, it was a different age with different problems.
Like Morrisey, or John Lydon the descent into irrelevance eclipses their moment and tarnishes it.
Yes, thats probably a more balanced take. I'm just annoyed by his intervention.
Violent men are very often violent in a domestic setting.
Joan Smith has written a whole book - Home Grown - about how so many terrorists, US gun killers and the like have a history of domestic violence and often embark on violence against the women closest to them before embarking on their more public sprees of violence. It's not though something which can only be laid at the door of those of any particular political persuasion, as you seem to imply. It applies to Islamist terrorists, left-wing terrorists, right-wing ones, mass murderers etc. The common factor is men and domestic violence against women, which is overlooked and not dealt with.
Indeed.
A simple truth - scumbags are never angels who suddenly went bad. It’s never their first crime. They serve a scumbag apprenticeship. They practise.
I was once at a talk by an anti-terrorism policeman. He said they hardly every arrested anyone on anti-terrorism charges as theya re hard to prove. They would just keep an eye on the until they could catch them in the act of something else (e.g. firearms possession) and send them away for a stretch. Nearly all active terrorists are scumbags anyway, apparently.
You must read A Big Boy Did it And Ran Away, which contains the following wisdom:
All terrorists are wankers. Whatever flags they wrapped themselves in, whatever religions, histories or myths they attached to their crusades, they were, to a man, just wankers. They told themselves and anyone bored enough to listen that they were in it for the glory of their cause or the welfare of their ‘people’ (few of whom were ever consulted about this), but the truth was that they were in it because they liked killing people. Every last fucking one of them.
Tories go cold on air conditioning ban in new homes Shadow energy secretary says party would ditch rules that leave families ‘suffering unnecessarily’ in heat ... The legal underpinning for the de facto air conditioning ban is in an update to the Building Regulations introduced by the Tories in 2021.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Closer to Trump is difficult when Trump changes his mind every day.
Presumably Blair means "join in with another Mid East war with unclear exit strategy".
That is a winner only in the mind of someone willing to be part of Trumps risible "Board of Peace".
The partnership with the USA is weaker. To be clear, we were never asked to ‘join’ America’s military action in Iran and, never having been part of the planning for such a mission, could not have been part of it. The initial request was simply for the use of our military bases for the refuelling of American planes. I understand the reasons for refusal but it’s not the best way to treat our ally. ... We have forgotten an essential lesson not just of diplomacy but of power politics: if you want to play you have to be sat at the table. And bring something to the table.
I know how hard it is to be an ally of the USA. We were its staunchest supporter post 9/11. We went through Afghanistan and Iraq together. But it mattered deeply to America and so it mattered to us also. America remains the indispensable core of Britain’s security alliance. But staying with it means even when it is difficult or unpopular. ... For the American relationship, that means building defence capability and being prepared politically to argue for the alliance even when controversial, of which Iran is the latest example. https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/the-labour-party-is-playing-with-fire-over-its-future-and-the-future-of-the-country
It’s like he can’t imagine things ever being significantly different, despite the fact that many Americans including the guy at the top very clearly can.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
I don't think this would stop the boats, because many of those people have legitimate asylum applications, which would be granted at the offshore processing centre. It might *reduce* the number of boats, but the government has already done that and it clearly doesn't impress the voters. The voters want there not to be boats.
I agree. The real issue is that the grounds for claiming asylum are too broad and don't work with 21st Century realpolitik.
Opinion editorial, roughly. It's a US phrase, but everyone's watched too much West Wing...
Its origin, I think, is 'opposite the editorial. This harks back to days when newspapers had centre pages, only two sides, with three editor's opinion pieces or leading articles, and several opinion pieces by regulars (Bernard Levin!) and others.
The rest of the newspaper in those days when they were actually read, consisted of news with only limited interpolation of opinion and distortion and an entire absence of the printing of press releases. When their source was Reuters or AP the4y said so.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Trump is increasingly toxic at home, and is utterly loathed in the UK. Blair's view, which he probably sees as pragmatic, reveals not only a tin ear for the current situation but is a significant strategic mistake too. Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Indeed. Increasingly I think he just got lucky in 1997. A tired tory govt, but inherited a strong economy, a helpful US president and a Chancellor who saved him from some of his more idiotic ideas like the euro.
I think that a bit unfair. Blair was a charismatic speaker. I saw him first hand in 1997 at a rally in Derby. He really had the zeitgeist.
But like those pining for Maggie, it was a different age with different problems.
Actually, our major problems today are remarkably similar to those of the late 1970s - stagnating or falling living standards, an economically incompetent Labour government following a poor, wet Conservative government and a tax, spend and regulate mentality in the political class. There's also an oil crisis in the Middle East, an aggressive Russia and our relations with Europe are unresolved.
Not everything is the same, especially the attitude of the US, but the echoes are pretty obvious.
And her remedies, which were essentially applying basic economics to economic policy and standing up for Britain's interests abroad, are timeless.
WARNS ministers to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats; BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget; DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills
The Sun.
The boat thing is so bonkers. Absolute midwits saying how aCKSHully wE CaNT dO anyTHing ABout iT when Labour have such a large majority.
Blair would have got it done. Didn't he say something about the British public not tolerating the unfairness of illegal immigration in his autobiog?
It's great to say do whatever it takes to stop the boats - but the followup question is what can be done that isn't already being done?
The correct answer is to do the equivalent of the Australian system: collect people, move them to an offshore processing location, and then process their asylum claims there.
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
Three thoughts…
1. Labour are increasing deportations of those whose asylum claims have been rejected, which may lessen that problem. It, at least, removes those individuals from the country.
2. The research generally shows that those coming over on boats have almost zero knowledge of the UK’s asylum policies and practices. People in, say, Libya aren’t pouring over tables of deportation rates or asylum acceptance rates per country. They often just pay people smugglers without even knowing where they will end up. For these people, it’s the push factors, the conflict at home, that matters more.
3. About half of asylum seekers come over on boats. They usually come from conflict zones, are escaping persecution, and their asylum claims have high rates of acceptance. However, about half of asylum seekers are already in the country, on work and student visas, and they have much lower acceptance rates. They have much more knowledge of the UK, but the pull factors for them are different as they originally came to the UK on some sort of visa.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
Game over, man! Game OVER!
Excellent news for the Democrats. 2.1 on Betfair to win the Texas Senate seat. 48% chance.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Sad. Blair has lost the plot. Maybe he's just become another boomer radicalized by the internet.
I've read his piece. So should you.
It's very good.
It has some truths in it (yes, Labour is a party that retreats too easily into its comfort zone, and yes, it puts far too little thought into how its policies affect business competitiveness) but for a piece on Labour’s delusions it is quite delusional in its own way. Exhibit one is the idea of supporting the US war in the middle east - I have spoken to former *very* senior people in the US security hierarchy who think this war is utterly insane, why would we want to be anywhere near it? Exhibit two is the idea of reneging on net zero, but what do you expect from a piece that seems to deny the very existence of climate change (when it's 35 degrees outside, in May)? I have long been a fan of Blair (I got a selfie with him a few years back when i bumped into him on the Eurostar) but I think he is becoming an irrelevant figure in British politics as he has bought into US tech bro nihilistic fantasies and become fanatically pro-Israel.
Well, as a lefty I had my doubts about Blair’s intervention, but Tim Shipman and various PB righties who wouldn’t vote Labour if you nailed their balls to a coffee table have made me reconsider.
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Sad. Blair has lost the plot. Maybe he's just become another boomer radicalized by the internet.
He did indeed get lucky in 1997. Really Labour should have won in 1992 and would have done so if John Smith, not Neil Kinnock, had been leader.
Anyway, if you listen to anything Blair says or analyse anything he writes it's absolutely vacuous (and grammatically atrocious). He draws on a very shallow well of knowledge and intelligence to produce air. Meaningless air.
I do think a political leader needs to have a depth of knowledge and grasp of detail but when they have neither and combine it with a Messiah Complex then it becomes dangerous, viz. Iraq
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Sad. Blair has lost the plot. Maybe he's just become another boomer radicalized by the internet.
He did indeed get lucky in 1997. Really Labour should have won in 1992 and would have done so if John Smith, not Neil Kinnock, had been leader.
Anyway, if you listen to anything Blair says or analyse anything he writes it's absolutely vacuous (and grammatically atrocious). He draws on a very shallow well of knowledge and intelligence to produce air. Meaningless air.
I do think a political leader needs to have a depth of knowledge and grasp of detail but when they have neither and combine it with a Messiah Complex then it becomes dangerous, viz. Iraq
Call me Dr Suspicious but do I get the feeling you don’t like Blair very much?
Another totally unhelpful intervention from Blair. The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
Well, as a lefty I had my doubts about Blair’s intervention, but Tim Shipman and various PB righties who wouldn’t vote Labour if you nailed their balls to a coffee table have made me reconsider.
The thing is, these are people who will cheer his intervention but will still never vote Labour
I bought a place in Scotland in the vain hope it might give me refuge from the hateful Right, and yes there's a hateful Left, but I think my residence there may be a brief one. This country is not a place in which I find resonance anymore.
The UK seems such a desperately unhappy and hate-filled country now.
I bought a place in Scotland in the vain hope it might give me refuge from the hateful Right, and yes there's a hateful Left, but I think my residence there may be a brief one. This country is not a place in which I find resonance anymore.
The UK seems such a desperately unhappy and hate-filled country now.
It's fine if you stay in London and don't go online.
With 14% of votes in, the Republican Party in Texas has decided it wants a competitive race in November. It's 59.4% for Paxton against 40.6% for Cornyn.
Paxton's lead is extending.
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
It's an absolute rout: Paxton is on almost 63% with more than 50% counted. Paxton is the nominee.
Game over, man! Game OVER!
Excellent news for the Democrats. 2.1 on Betfair to win the Texas Senate seat. 48% chance.
The Republicans look increasingly unhinged.
Even allowing for their fanatical devotion to Trump, why on earth would they pick a criminal with such an appalling track record of incompetence as their candidate?
It’s not as though Cornyn was exactly a liberal either.
If they lose the Senate over this they have only themselves to blame (assuming Greg Abbott would certify a Dem victory, of course).
I bought a place in Scotland in the vain hope it might give me refuge from the hateful Right, and yes there's a hateful Left, but I think my residence there may be a brief one. This country is not a place in which I find resonance anymore.
The UK seems such a desperately unhappy and hate-filled country now.
It's fine if you stay in London and don't go online.
But that means living in London, which is an overpriced dump.
Comments
Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
Yes, I get it, you all hate Tony Blair etc you’ll find loads to disagree with here I’m sure - but the quality of analysis of our problems and what any potential leader ought to be thinking about if they want to solve them puts this essay light years ahead of what any current contender for national leadership has offered. Anyone who wants to be an effective prime minister (including the current one) should read it
https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2059397298560385505
- from the Prime Minister whose government "rubbed the right's nose in multiculturalism"
"BLASTS Rachel Reeves’ national insurance rise in her first Budget";
- from the Prime Minister whose Chancellor announced a remarkably similar national insurance rise in 2002
"DEMANDS North Sea drilling to prioritise cheaper bills"
- from the Prime Minister whose government drafted the disastrous Climate Change Act.
Blair's complete lack of self-awareness and total hypocrisy would be beyond belief, except of course that we had to put up with it for a decade.
Still gives me a sick feeling whenever I see his toothless grin, and a yearning to get it wiped off his face with an investigation into the sources of his tens of millions.
I'd be ringing him daily asking him to give lessons on it to every minister....
The fact that so many left leaning posters and centrists - the very people who would have voted for TB - cannot see this, astounds.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
Genuinely don’t understand what Tony Blair is trying to achieve with this intervention.
And Brown ran most of the domestic agenda.
But the best way to deal with the boats would be to offer Farage a cabinet post with £1bn of funding and tell him to get on with sorting out the issue - and watch him fail.
Could well be. But leaders should lead not pander.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
51m
Andy Burnham and his team will be breaking open the champagne tonight.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2059391119511728392
All terrorists are wankers. Whatever flags they wrapped themselves in, whatever religions, histories or myths they attached to their crusades, they were, to a man, just wankers. They told themselves and anyone bored enough to listen that they were in it for the glory of their cause or the welfare of their ‘people’ (few of whom were ever consulted about this), but the truth was that they were in it because they liked killing people. Every last fucking one of them.
Tony Blair arguably returning Labour to its comfort zone - infighting.
Lots to chew over but did anyone else spot the drive-by against Gordon Brown, known in the Blairite code as just “2007”, and then linking /
blaming him for Jeremy Corbyn….
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
1h
Full story here - with extraordinary quotes from a former prime minister slamming the paucity of ideas from his Labour successors
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2059388347546489339
Open border ideologues - who don't see it as a problem.
The Right - who need it to fuel grievance.
And one of these groups is far larger and more influential than the other.
Pass the popcorn. Again.
Richard Burgon MP
@RichardBurgon
·
34m
Tony Blair has nothing to offer Labour in 2026.
His neoliberalism, backing of endless wars and acceptance of inequality are exactly what Labour must break from if it wants to rebuild support and defeat the far-right.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers
“This... feels very much like the Tony Blair of his 3rd term when he pursued what allies used to call was his flying F strategy... he didn’t give a flying F for what his party thought as he delivered home truths”
@nicholaswatt on Sir Tony Blair's Labour intervention
The current system is such that if you asylum claim is granted, then great. And if it is not, then -no matter!- you are already in the UK and can disappear into someone's spare room and join the informal workforce. That makes the UK a pretty big pull relative to other countries.
Short for Opinion - Editorial from the US style
It looks like we have a real contest in November.
Ie even if legitimate, they will never be flown back to Australia.
Number of boat travellers dropped to approximately zero within 1 year of this system being implemented by the extreme right *checks notes* Labor Party.
If I recall correctly, Bari Weiss left her job at the NYT because they were unwilling to publish an op-ed by Tom Cotton. (Which Weiss diagreed with, but thought it a common enough belief that it deserved some space.)
Have an offshore processing centre in -say- Morocco. Any one who arrives by boat gets flown to Morocco to have their asylum application assessed.
Of people arriving on boats, around one third will know they have a good asylum case; one third will know they have no case; and one third thinks... well, if I get lucky, it'll get approved.
Right now, they all arrive, becasue if you don't get approved you just disappear into the informal economy. What's the downside of getting on a small boat even if you don't have a good claim? And what's the downside if your claim is possible, but far from a certain thing?
Offshore processing would eliminate all the chancers from getting on the boats; most of the 'well I might...', and even a fair number of those with legitimate claims, because who wants to holed up in a processing centre in Morocco for six months?
Now, would it go to zero? No. And you know what, we probably want to keep pushing it towards zero. But an offshore processing centre, with nothing else changed, would still have a serious deterrent effect, because the 'disappear into the informal economy' option is no longer there.
Don't let great be the enemy of good. An offshore processing center would not require additional legislation. It would not require treaties. It would be very hard to legally challenge, because it would be the existing laws, just with the processing happening somewhere else.
ETA scooped by Jim Miller.
On brand for Trump's MAGA.
https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/the-labour-party-is-playing-with-fire-over-its-future-and-the-future-of-the-country
We don’t agree on everything, but we both still believe in public service.
To Senator Cornyn’s supporters: you have a place in our campaign.
https://x.com/jamestalarico/status/2059440382400774481
If it's the first one then what you suggest might be helpful but I'd be kind of amazed if the cost of bribing $OTHER_COUNTRY to accept this processing center, building and running it, flying everybody over there, flying some of them back, and flying all the Home Office people back and forth wasn't wildly higher than the supposed benefits dissuading whatever proportion of the people in small boats it dissuades.
If it's the second one then you have to ask the question, will they actually be satisfied that you've killed Glonzo. I think the answer to that is no, because there will still be boats and they'll still be in the papers. The government have already reduced the number of boats and massively reduced net migration, and as far as I can tell got absolutely zero credit for it.
I'm both. And I can't be the only one.
Reform will be dangerous when they can scale up. At the moment they haven't the ground game to deliver and are simply relying on media support - paid and unpaid.
The only centre left wins of late have been from leaders distancing themselves from Trump. He would guarantee the Greens overtake Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/26/tony-blair-labour-abandon-net-zero-support-donald-trump
It would probably mean taking in more asylum seekers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s568yek7m8s
20% of those arrested in the 2024 riots have been reported for domestic violence since.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/26/one-in-five-people-arrested-over-2024-riots-have-since-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Blair's reputation is going to keep falling.
Presumably Blair means "join in with another Mid East war with unclear exit strategy".
That is a winner only in the mind of someone willing to be part of Trumps risible "Board of Peace".
If we’re talking about district council seats.
But like those pining for Maggie, it was a different age with different problems.
Like Morrisey, or John Lydon the descent into irrelevance eclipses their moment and tarnishes it.
And dear God, doesn't Blair look OLD? As if the MAD kid had suddenly got to 90.
The test of a political leader, as Robert Blake noted, is the ability to exploit that luck. From that point of view love him or loathe him we could say of Tony Blair, channelling Edward Heath on Wilson, that he was a tremendous politician if perhaps never quite a statesman.
Still made sense but I paused for a minute as I hadn’t heard that about him.
...
We have forgotten an essential lesson not just of diplomacy but of power politics: if you want to play you have to be sat at the table. And bring something to the table.
I know how hard it is to be an ally of the USA. We were its staunchest supporter post 9/11. We went through Afghanistan and Iraq together. But it mattered deeply to America and so it mattered to us also. America remains the indispensable core of Britain’s security alliance. But staying with it means even when it is difficult or unpopular.
...
For the American relationship, that means building defence capability and being prepared politically to argue for the alliance even when controversial, of which Iran is the latest example.
https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/the-labour-party-is-playing-with-fire-over-its-future-and-the-future-of-the-country
You know, that still works…
Shadow energy secretary says party would ditch rules that leave families ‘suffering unnecessarily’ in heat
...
The legal underpinning for the de facto air conditioning ban is in an update to the Building Regulations introduced by the Tories in 2021.
At the time, Robert Jenrick, who has since defected to Reform UK, was the housing secretary responsible for introducing the rules.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/26/tories-proposals-ban-air-conditioning-new-homes/ (£££)
It's very good.
The rest of the newspaper in those days when they were actually read, consisted of news with only limited interpolation of opinion and distortion and an entire absence of the printing of press releases. When their source was Reuters or AP the4y said so.
Not everything is the same, especially the attitude of the US, but the echoes are pretty obvious.
And her remedies, which were essentially applying basic economics to economic policy and standing up for Britain's interests abroad, are timeless.
Every time Tone opens his mouth the Left gains support
1. Labour are increasing deportations of those whose asylum claims have been rejected, which may lessen that problem. It, at least, removes those individuals from the country.
2. The research generally shows that those coming over on boats have almost zero knowledge of the UK’s asylum policies and practices. People in, say, Libya aren’t pouring over tables of deportation rates or asylum acceptance rates per country. They often just pay people smugglers without even knowing where they will end up. For these people, it’s the push factors, the conflict at home, that matters more.
3. About half of asylum seekers come over on boats. They usually come from conflict zones, are escaping persecution, and their asylum claims have high rates of acceptance. However, about half of asylum seekers are already in the country, on work and student visas, and they have much lower acceptance rates. They have much more knowledge of the UK, but the pull factors for them are different as they originally came to the UK on some sort of visa.
2.1 on Betfair to win the Texas Senate seat. 48% chance.
Blair sounds like he will vote reform.
Anyway, if you listen to anything Blair says or analyse anything he writes it's absolutely vacuous (and grammatically atrocious). He draws on a very shallow well of knowledge and intelligence to produce air. Meaningless air.
I do think a political leader needs to have a depth of knowledge and grasp of detail but when they have neither and combine it with a Messiah Complex then it becomes dangerous, viz. Iraq
But it just shows the Blair is now a voice on the right - he offers nothing to Labour now. Burnham will get a boost from not being endorsed by Blair.
I bought a place in Scotland in the vain hope it might give me refuge from the hateful Right, and yes there's a hateful Left, but I think my residence there may be a brief one. This country is not a place in which I find resonance anymore.
The UK seems such a desperately unhappy and hate-filled country now.
Even allowing for their fanatical devotion to Trump, why on earth would they pick a criminal with such an appalling track record of incompetence as their candidate?
It’s not as though Cornyn was exactly a liberal either.
If they lose the Senate over this they have only themselves to blame (assuming Greg Abbott would certify a Dem victory, of course).
*grabs tinfoil hat*