Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Looks like, finally Boris is on his way out.
No confidence vote expected tonight
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Paul Anderson
Enthusiast
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Anderson »

No, he'll easily survive it, but will be mortally damaged by it
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
If i was a tory voter I would want him out before the next general election as I don't think the tories would win with him at the helm
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Ian Fitzpatrick
Devotee
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Wimborne, Dorset

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Fitzpatrick »

Marc Meakin wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:05 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
If i was a tory voter I would want him out before the next general election as I don't think the tories would win with him at the helm
I think you've got to give him time, he's been so diverted with Covid and the Ukraine war, he may yet work wonders!
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.

But now there’s a genuinely awful conspiracy theory going around that Boris never had Covid. Come on, seriously… a bit of fact-checking please.

Please take a sensible pill before you call our office with “wHy dId aLeXaNdEr jOhNsOn lIe aBoUt hAvInG cOvId”
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4539
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ben Wilson »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.
This is actually a good analogy, as the usual traffic laws do apply to police cars, with the only exception being when they're actively responding to an emergency (source: my brother, a cop).
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Ben Wilson wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:26 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am It’s more like “oh, I’m sorry, as a police car the traffic laws don’t all apply to us, I didn’t realise that one still did”.
This is actually a good analogy, as the usual traffic laws do apply to police cars, with the only exception being when they're actively responding to an emergency (source: my brother, a cop).
Yes, and I'm not sure what laws Rhys thinks Boris Johnson doesn't have to obey.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:13 am But now there’s a genuinely awful conspiracy theory going around that Boris never had Covid. Come on, seriously… a bit of fact-checking please.

Please take a sensible pill before you call our office with “wHy dId aLeXaNdEr jOhNsOn lIe aBoUt hAvInG cOvId”
It was total BS that he nearly died though.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

This video is a good summary of some of what Boris Johnson got up to before becoming Prime Minister. It still amazes me that anyone ever thought he was remotely suitable for the job. I think the only reason the Tory MPs accepted him as their leader is that for some reason he was able to win over a lot of people with his inane Mr Blobby persona, and that they were aware that most of the rest of them are more transparently dislikeable. Christ knows why anyone fell for it though.
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

It was Angus Deayton's fault. If he hadn't got fired from Have I Got News For You and they didn't do that guest host thing, Johnson would never have gotten famous.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Flight to Rwanda cancelled!
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

The people smugglers have won then.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

No. Just come up with a better system to stop it. E.g.
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:24 pm The whole refugee/asylum seeker situation is ridiculous anyway. It's insane that people are in a position where they feel the need to make a dangerous crossing from France to the UK when both are rich western countries that should know how to treat people properly.

Countries should simply work together on this and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone who is trying to reach somewhere should be able to make their claim in the first safe country they reach, but make their claim for where they want to go. Then an independent body (set up by the countries in the agreement) decides where to place them, based on their need and obviously also availability (not just they just happen to end up first). That way, they would be treated fairly wherever they go.
The fact that people are making this dangerous crossing from France to the UK is an indictment on both the UK and France and the systems they have in place.
Paul Anderson
Enthusiast
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Anderson »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:34 am The people smugglers have won then.
No, decency has
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:34 am The people smugglers have won then.
When did "we don't want refugees who successfully claim asylum in the UK to be deported permanently to Rwanda" start to imply support for people smugglers?

If it were about breaking the business model of the people smugglers, we could allow refugees to apply for British asylum while in France, ship them over here safely, and process their claim as normal. Nobody would have to pay thousands for a place in an overcrowded dinghy and the business model of the people smugglers would be smashed overnight.

But that's not what it's really about, is it? It's really about preventing refugees coming here in the first place.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Why do people need to claim asylum from France? It’s not exactly a non-safe country.

These people are coming over the channel in unseaworthy vessels from a safe country, France, and we are spending millions every day accommodating them in stasis. A policy of deporting them is not a bad policy at all. And France refuse to take them so why not somewhere that agrees? Like Rwanda?
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am Why do people need to claim asylum from France? It’s not exactly a non-safe country.
Asylum seekers are not obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. (Source: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/uk-immigration ... unhcr.html)

Note particularly: "While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links."
Rhys Benjamin wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am These people are coming over the channel in unseaworthy vessels from a safe country, France, and we are spending millions every day accommodating them in stasis. A policy of deporting them is not a bad policy at all.
The point is that they wouldn't need to come over the channel in unseaworthy vessels if we shipped them here ourselves. Someone can only claim asylum in a country they're physically in, so why not identify all the people in Calais who want to claim asylum in the UK and ship them over here so they can do so? Let the people traffickers stand there with empty wallets watching asylum seekers being boarded onto Royal Navy ships for free.

Spending money on accommodating asylum seekers is just one of those things every country has to do as part of their international obligations. Just like France and Germany, who each get more asylum applications than the UK.
Rhys Benjamin wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am And France refuse to take them so why not somewhere that agrees? Like Rwanda?
Is France refusing to take them? If so then wouldn't France be shirking its obligations to refugees? And if France is refusing to take them, isn't this a good enough reason why refugees aren't settling there?

The refugees Priti Patel wants to deport to Rwanda have no connection with the country and don't want to live there. Isn't that reason enough?
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Graeme Cole wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 amThe point is that they wouldn't need to come over the channel in unseaworthy vessels if we shipped them here ourselves.
The point is they shouldn't be coming over in unseaworthy vessels AT ALL. There are plenty of safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK. God knows we deal with enough HO cases in our office which aren't illegal immigrants.

"If you come over in a dinghy and financing crime in our country by means of people smugglers, you're outta here" is a perfectly sensible policy.
Graeme Cole wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 am"While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links."
Which still doesn't excuse illegal channel crossings.
Graeme Cole wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:24 amIs France refusing to take them? If so then wouldn't France be shirking its obligations to refugees? And if France is refusing to take them, isn't this a good enough reason why refugees aren't settling there?
The French interior minister last year even said it's not their problem and won't do anything to stop these boats taking off. The PM wrote a letter to the French Interior Minister last year and the French refused to patrol the beaches to stop boats taking off (and/or let the British army do it), and also refused to take back channel crossers.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:21 pm The point is they shouldn't be coming over in unseaworthy vessels AT ALL. There are plenty of safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK. God knows we deal with enough HO cases in our office which aren't illegal immigrants.
So why do they come in this illegal manner? Why don't they use the safe and legal routes? Surely they would if they could. Something's not working.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal
Channel crossings are not illegal

(One of many sources for the above: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 03063.html)

To be fair, if I hadn't started following people working in that sector I might also still have assumed otherwise. It's not just the likes of Patel who continue to mislead on this point; even more sympathetic media and politicians are often depressingly bad for it.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.

That ruling, based on a loophole of the difference “arrival” and “entry”, has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023/stages
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams »

When the M25 was built it was immediately full to capacity. When it was decided that a new road should be built it was planned on the basis of existing traffic levels. No account was taken of the traffic that would be created by the new road.

I think it's pretty clear that it's difficult, dangerous and expensive for many people to get to the UK even though they have a legal right to do so. If you make it easier, more people will attempt it. Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim to be allowed into this country if they could get here? I'm all in favour of immigration and the rule of law, but is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions of people applying to stay in this country if they could only get here?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David Williams wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:43 am When the M25 was built it was immediately full to capacity. When it was decided that a new road should be built it was planned on the basis of existing traffic levels. No account was taken of the traffic that would be created by the new road.

I think it's pretty clear that it's difficult, dangerous and expensive for many people to get to the UK even though they have a legal right to do so. If you make it easier, more people will attempt it. Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim to be allowed into this country if they could get here? I'm all in favour of immigration and the rule of law, but is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions of people applying to stay in this country if they could only get here?
How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?

Even if that is the case, I still think my solution is the best. You apply for asylum for any country in the first "safe country" you reach. Then an independent body set up by the safe countries assesses your case and decides which, if any, country you can settle in, based on your needs and also the capacities of the countries.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:10 am How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?
Brexit?

Actually, I'm not sure it's true that the UK is getting more than anywhere else. But that wasn't the question I was concerned with. It's more the possibility that billions of people could make a case that where they live is intolerable, so they have a right to live somewhere else
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David Williams wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:21 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:10 am How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?
Brexit?

Actually, I'm not sure it's true that the UK is getting more than anywhere else. But that wasn't the question I was concerned with. It's more the possibility that billions of people could make a case that where they live is intolerable, so they have a right to live somewhere else
Are you suggesting that asylum seekers are attracted the UK specifcally because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?

But anyway you seemed to be suggesting that that we'd be flooded if not for the difficult channel crossings. And since other countries don't require such a crossing, why aren't they already being flooded? Or if they are and I just don't know about it, these countries don't seem to have collapsed or anything under the strain, so I'm not sure I would lose any sleep over the possibility of channel crossings being made easier.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act
You haven't highlighted what specific part of the Act backs up your point, and much of it isn't in force yet, but even giving you maximum benefit of doubt, I think the most that can be said is that crossings could now theoretically be criminalised but under provisions which are themselves contrary to international law.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

David Williams wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:43 am Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim... is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions?
I've had similar thoughts before - if you added everyone at risk of FGM, forced marriage, homophobic violence, etc... I don't know if that would add up to hundreds of millions, but either way, I'd say a number like that is still fanciful, practically speaking. Maybe we could get that many if we set up processing centres in literally every town and village in every low-income country, but not otherwise.

As far as I know, "just" being in grinding poverty doesn't qualify one for asylum, and a large majority of migrants who crossed the Channel last year were from five or six specific countries, all of which contained recognisable war zones.

I think this article/visualisation is quite insightful:

https://thecorrespondent.com/664/how-ma ... t-migrants
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:28 am
... asylum seekers attracted because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?
I'm guessing that bit might have been tongue-in-cheek.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams »

I'm simply seeking information, which seems to be in short supply.

I'm sure I've seen reports of major problems in countries in Eastern Europe with large numbers of refugees being repelled by barricades. Just because it ceases to be news in the UK doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. (Does it?) And other countries not being flooded doesn't really prove much. If you live in Afghanistan (population nearly 40 million), for example, I think you would have a pretty good case, but it's an impossible dream - for now.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T »

Rhys, would you be in favour of shipping Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda?
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

David Williams wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm I'm simply seeking information, which seems to be in short supply.
I normally quite enjoy your posts by the way, but unless I'm misreading, I don't know what it is you find lacking in my and/or Gev's replies. Nobody on this thread seems to be expert on the topic as such, and neither he nor I apparently have a ready figure for the number of people theoretically eligible for asylum, but... well, neither do you, and I'm not complaining about the fact you don't.

I think it's legitimate though to question what the relevance of that figure would be - "making it easier" for people to reach the UK could mean a range of things, but even if we actively tried to maximise the numbers, some would prefer not to uproot themselves despite the dangers of staying, some would choose to go to their neighbouring countries or other European countries, and so on. Most of the previous posts had been referring more to people who had already reached Calais.
David Williams wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm I'm sure I've seen reports of major problems in countries in Eastern Europe with large numbers of refugees being repelled by barricades.
How large were these numbers compared to the entire populations of these countries? And using barricades sounds both morally and legally questionable, to say the least - would that not be more of a 'problem' than the presence of refugees?
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Phil H wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:44 am
Rhys Benjamin wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act
You haven't highlighted what specific part of the Act backs up your point, and much of it isn't in force yet, but even giving you maximum benefit of doubt, I think the most that can be said is that crossings could now theoretically be criminalised but under provisions which are themselves contrary to international law.
Section 40 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to that end to the point that it becomes illegal not only to assist individuals to unlawfully enter the UK, but to be such an “assisted individual”.
Fiona T wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 1:09 am Rhys, would you be in favour of shipping Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda?
It doesn’t really matter where people are from, but rather the means they got here by. So yes and no. Same goes for Afghanistan, if they arrived here by means of the ACRS or Op Pitting that’s fine, if they arrived here by small boat and people smuggling then they should be deported.

Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams »

https://tinyurl.com/ycxwwa3n This is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

My point is really that simply doing the decent thing by anyone in a camp in Calais today would surely mean that even more people would turn up in Calais. And personally I don't see the current numbers trying to get into the UK as being a problem, but I do suspect there's potentially a massive global problem in the offing. You'd like to think that Governments the world over would be looking at the big picture long-term, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

David Williams wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 3:01 pmMy point is really that simply doing the decent thing by anyone in a camp in Calais today would surely mean that even more people would turn up in Calais.
Aye. David Cameron in 2015 said that we would only take in refugees from Syria (rather than via Europe) so that they wouldn’t be encouraged to make those dangerous journeys into Europe in the first place.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:09 pm Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?
No. If someone arrives in this country, legally or otherwise, and claims asylum, we should assess their claim and house them while this claim is processed.

If their asylum claim is successful, then they are recognised as a refugee and given the associated rights, such as the right to live in the UK.

If their asylum claim is not successful, then it follows that it must be safe for them to return to their home country, so they should be returned there.

My argument is that in neither case is it acceptable for us to deport them to some other random country which they don't want to go to and have no connection with, just because it's politically convenient for the government of the day. Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that? What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?
Paul Worsley
Enthusiast
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley »

Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?
Australia has processed illegal migrants trying to enter their country offshore since 2012. It has cross party support, and has been deemed a success.
Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?
It's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole »

Paul Worsley wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 am
Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?
Australia has processed illegal migrants trying to enter their country offshore since 2012. It has cross party support, and has been deemed a success.
I didn't know about this before, but you're referring to this, I don't agree with that either.
Paul Worsley wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 am
Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?
It's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.
No, but there is an internationally agreed obligation on countries to properly assess claims for asylum, not punish asylum seekers for entering the country illegally, and if someone is granted refugee status, to protect them and give them the relevant rights.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Not to punish illegal entry into a country?

[citation needed]
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:51 pm Not to punish illegal entry into a country?

[citation needed]
Article 31 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention...
Martin Long
Acolyte
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:24 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Long »

Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am
Rhys Benjamin wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:09 pm Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?
No. If someone arrives in this country, legally or otherwise, and claims asylum, we should assess their claim and house them while this claim is processed.

If their asylum claim is successful, then they are recognised as a refugee and given the associated rights, such as the right to live in the UK.

If their asylum claim is not successful, then it follows that it must be safe for them to return to their home country, so they should be returned there.

My argument is that in neither case is it acceptable for us to deport them to some other random country which they don't want to go to and have no connection with, just because it's politically convenient for the government of the day. Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that? What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?
Denmark and Israel have embarked on similar policies to that of the UK in the past.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

It's also worth asking how far the Rwanda policy succeeds according to its own stated objectives:

- the UK paid Rwanda £500,000 for the planned flight last week alone; this would have been the same whether 30-40, 1 or 0 migrants had left on it.
- further domestic legal challenges are to come, meaning that even if all 30-40 had gone as intended, they might have been the last 30-40.
- UK plans to receive a certain number of people from Rwanda in return as part of the deal.
- all indications are that the numbers who go to Rwanda will only ever be a small portion of annual channel arrivals. So perhaps, instead of the UK processing 30,000, we get the UK processing 29,000 and Rwanda 1,000. If you were monitoring UK birth or death rates, would you think a change of that size worthy of note? Will this "break the model" of smuggling?

Overall I think it reasonable to suspect that last week's flight was scheduled largely with an eye on the approaching by-elections, given that anti-immigration messaging is one of the main things they know to have worked for them previously.
Last edited by Phil H on Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil H »

[double]
Martin Long
Acolyte
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:24 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Long »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:25 pm I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.
Point taken.
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James »

Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove has been sacked. He put all his XP into sorcery when Johnson actually wanted a dex/strength melee build.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

I am sad that Boris has gone although it was the right time for him to stand down.

As a voter in this election, brief views on each of the leadership candidates:

Kemi Badenoch:

“I’m the Prime Minister and I’m offended by unisex / gender neutral toilets” is bonkers. I’m not overly keen on net zero either but pledging to abolish it is a golden ticket for Labour and Greens and puts us on the wrong side of history.

Suella Braverman:

When you’ve been outschooled by Sebastian Vettel on Question Time your comms cannot possibly lead us into a General Election. You’re also nuts on trans issues and the pink press will be smearing us for another 50 years if you’re elected.

Jeremy Hunt:

More bitter than most lagers, what does he actually stand for these days? My 2019 criticism of “Theresa May in trousers” still stands and his positions on lockdowns are frightening. They should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Penny Morduant:

The timing feels strange and it does feel a little early for her. However, her policy positions appear to be the most sound although I am concerned about her U-turn on trans issues and some dirt that was given to me today about her (but it is fairly minor).

Rishi Sunak:

Have lost a lot of respect for him. Boris gave him almost complete autonomy over economic policy and we have not been Right enough. A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.

Liz Truss:

Does she have the gravitas to be PM? Her cheese speech still lingers in my memory and she is ridiculous gaffe-prone but without the charm that Boris had for him to get away with it. Mogg/Dorries endorsement awfully cynical too.

Tom Tugendhat:

Too critical of Boris before Partygate although I like his tough stance on China and his plans to cut taxes.

Nadhim Zahawi:

Again, trans issues are the red flag here. An S28-style policy would be nuts and we would be failing to learn from our mistakes as a party. We cannot set one group against the other unnecessarily.

Summary: probably Mordaunt, Truss, or Tugendhat for me. But absolutely not the others.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

They're probably all psychopaths, but Rishi Sunak stands out as the one who doesn't want to cut tax - and therefore all our services, benefits etc. But these people are not just psychopaths; they're charmless psychopaths. I'm not sure what the Daily Mail etc. could realistically do to make them electable in the general election. Just telling people that they don't know what Keir Starmer stands for enough times so that they believe it and start parroting it back will have long since worn thin by then. It should be an open goal, and yet I still really worry that something will go wrong.

But if I was a Tory that wasn't merely looking for as many poor people to die as possible but actually wanted a victory in the next general election, I'd be supporting Sunak.

Edit - I wonder what horrific location you'd end up at if you put TUG END HAT into whatthreewords.
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:40 am A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.
This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place, therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Enthusiast
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:56 am Edit - I wonder what horrific location you'd end up at if you put TUG END HAT into whatthreewords.
The closest I can get is tugs.tend.that or tugs.send.that - the former is in the middle of the Australian desert and the latter is a cabin in the woods in North Carolina.
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Politics in General

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Favourite what3words: credit.card.denied is in Ontario, Canada - where median house prices are now reaching into the millions.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Looking at Oddschecker, it would appear that Penny Mordaunt is odds on favourite to win the leadership "race". However, having heard her awful Paul McCartney comment earlier, I don't think she's going to win the next general election.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

I thought it was a good analogy though.
Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.
In fact most of the tories greatest hits was under Thatcher.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante »

Marc Meakin wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:35 am Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.
Are socialists particularly into early noughties metal?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin »

Ian Volante wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:14 am
Marc Meakin wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:35 am Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.
Are socialists particularly into early noughties metal?
No but, not Slipknot are not universally liked like Macca
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Ian Volante wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.
This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.
You could still have a giveaway for non-taxpayers (ie those earning under £12,500) but we have taxed more AND spent more, which is Labour’s solution. Cut out the middle man here. We have taken money away in NI hikes and given it back to them in a state handout. That’s the Leftie solution.

Upon further reflection, I’m #PM4PM
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante »

I've some sympathy with reducing the role of the state. However, the state has a powerful position, especially at the moment, in smoothing turbulent economic waters. To my mind, there's way too much rhetoric, and very little cogent policy-making, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Personal responsibility is great, but getting on one's bike is much easier a: when you can afford one, and b: when you've enough food to fuel yourself in the first place.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

And c: when the roads are safe and suitable for it.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13213
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper »

The transparently corrupt Johnson regime has removed the party whip from Tobias Ellwood, who was unable to vote in the confidence motion in the government due to being in Moldova in his role as chair of the Commons Defence Committee. Ellwood is supporting Penny Mordaunt in the leadership contest, whereas the regime is supporting Liz Truss.

Here is Chris Bryant in the confidence debate destroying the government.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:10 pm The transparently corrupt Johnson regime has removed the party whip from Tobias Ellwood, who was unable to vote in the confidence motion in the government due to being in Moldova in his role as chair of the Commons Defence Committee. Ellwood is supporting Penny Mordaunt in the leadership contest, whereas the regime is supporting Liz Truss.

Here is Chris Bryant in the confidence debate destroying the government.
All the Tory MPs who I seem to think are alright keep getting booted out :? decent rant from the Rt Hon Jonathan Pie MP.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Post Reply