Politics in General
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Looks like, finally Boris is on his way out.
No confidence vote expected tonight
No confidence vote expected tonight
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: Politics in General
No, he'll easily survive it, but will be mortally damaged by it
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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 helmGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: Politics in General
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!Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:05 pmIf 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 helmGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:38 pm Triggered on purpose by his supporters before the by-elections?
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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”
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”
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Politics in General
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).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”.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Yes, and I'm not sure what laws Rhys thinks Boris Johnson doesn't have to obey.Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:26 pmThis 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).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”.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
It was total BS that he nearly died though.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”
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
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.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Flight to Rwanda cancelled!
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
The people smugglers have won then.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
No. Just come up with a better system to stop it. E.g.
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.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.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: Politics in General
No, decency has
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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?
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?
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Politics in General
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)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.
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."
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.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.
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.
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?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:22 am And France refuse to take them so why not somewhere that agrees? Like Rwanda?
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?
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.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.
"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.
Which still doesn't excuse illegal channel crossings.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."
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.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?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.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.
Re: Politics in General
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.
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.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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
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
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Politics in General
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?
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?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?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?
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.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Politics in General
Brexit?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?
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
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Are you suggesting that asylum seekers are attracted the UK specifcally because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:21 amBrexit?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?
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
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.
Re: Politics in General
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.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act
Re: Politics in General
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.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?
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
Re: Politics in General
I'm guessing that bit might have been tongue-in-cheek.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:28 am
... asylum seekers attracted because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
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.
Re: Politics in General
Rhys, would you be in favour of shipping Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda?
Re: Politics in General
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.David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm I'm simply seeking information, which seems to be in short supply.
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.
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?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.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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”.Phil H wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:44 amYou 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.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act
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?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
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.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.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.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.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?
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?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm
Re: Politics in General
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 Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?
It's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.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?
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Politics in General
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 amAustralia 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 Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?
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.Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 amIt's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.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?
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Not to punish illegal entry into a country?
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Re: Politics in General
Article 31 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention...Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:51 pm Not to punish illegal entry into a country?
[citation needed]
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:24 pm
- Location: Redcar, UK
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Denmark and Israel have embarked on similar policies to that of the UK in the past.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 amNo. 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.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?
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?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.
Re: Politics in General
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.
- 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.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:24 pm
- Location: Redcar, UK
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Point taken.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:25 pm I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove has been sacked. He put all his XP into sorcery when Johnson actually wanted a dex/strength melee build.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
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.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
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.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
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).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.
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
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.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.
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Politics in General
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.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
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
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Are socialists particularly into early noughties metal?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.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
No but, not Slipknot are not universally liked like MaccaIan Volante wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:14 amAre socialists particularly into early noughties metal?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.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pmThis 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).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.
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.
Upon further reflection, I’m #PM4PM
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
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.
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
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
And c: when the roads are safe and suitable for it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13318
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
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.
Here is Chris Bryant in the confidence debate destroying the government.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Politics in General
All the Tory MPs who I seem to think are alright keep getting booted out decent rant from the Rt Hon Jonathan Pie MP.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.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.