In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
I don't even think that follows or has any significance. There was such a widespread determination to evict the previous shower - I'd hardly even called them Conservatives - that large numbers of people voted tactically to achieve that, rather than to show their support for the party or candidate they might have preferred to have been able to choose. That, incidentally, includes me, though for different reasons specific to the situation in constituency where I live.
It is particularly difficult to deduce from the electoral figures this time round what the actual size is of Labour and LibDem support is in the country.
I think the only thing one can definitely say is that nobody voted tactically for Reform Ltd. Disgusting though it may be that anyone should vote for them, I think one has to accept that all their voters were expressing their first preference.
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
I don't even think that follows or has any significance. There was such a widespread determination to evict the previous shower
There was such widespread determination that turnout was down (and on the order of where it would be in elections in which the results are foregone conclusions - 2001, 2005 etc).
I'd hardly even called them Conservatives - that large numbers of people voted tactically to achieve that
It is particularly difficult to deduce from the electoral figures this time round what the actual size is of Labour and LibDem support is in the country.
You'd expect these tactical votes would show up somewhere, and they generally don't (despite the Lib Dems benefiting from some tactical voting in the South West their total votes were also down).
Lib Dem support is partly borrowed from Labour, but it seems it was the collapse of the Tory vote (and that of the SNP in Scotland) that benefited Labour, rather than either large numbers of people voting tactically for Labour or a good 'get out the base' operation. In that sense it wasn't like elections like 1997 (see @Leorning Cniht's point)
As far as I'm concerned all the parties are pretty clueless, and that is the conclusion of my 31 year old sons and 28 year old lodger too. So, on that basis I'm going to fly a kite here with thumbnails courtesy of my #1 son:
Lib-Dems - lovely people, heart in the right place, don't get economics or business; could run a great B&B, no good at anything bigger Labour - may get economics but don't get business; really don't get either countryside or rural economics; a tendency to fight the class war of the 1930s, convinced of their own virtue so can come across as priggish Tories (in their current form) - may get business, sometimes get economics; resisting class war of the 1930s, suspicious of anything "green"; have a sneaking admiration for Farage but loathe Trump Reform - it hasn't been the same since the War (which war unspecified); all change is bad; best seen as the really annoying President of your local bowls club Greens - Lib-Dems through a megaphone; distrust all business, view farmers with suspicion, don't see the need for modern infrastructure; know they are right
Now I'll grab my trusty tin helmet and take refuge in my Anderson Shelter.
Odd that you think Labour fight a class war but tories resist one. I would suggest it is rather that the tories have, for their entire existence, been waging a class war on behalf first of the landed classes and latterly the wealthy more generally. Labour occasionally deigns to notice and fight back.
Old-school Labour and Tories: think of the 1914-18 Western Front, both sides stuck in their trenches, lobbing shells at each othe, waiting for the decisive breakthrough that never quite happens.
Labour is fighting a class war but against their old friends. They are solidly middle class at the moment. Anything to the left that might help the working class is looked on with suspicion. Maybe they should change their name from Labour to Middle Management.
Old-school Labour and Tories: think of the 1914-18 Western Front, both sides stuck in their trenches, lobbing shells at each othe, waiting for the decisive breakthrough that never quite happens.
Right, but that's not class war, because Labour has largely disowned any class interest.
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Labour is fighting a class war but against their old friends. They are solidly middle class at the moment. Anything to the left that might help the working class is looked on with suspicion. Maybe they should change their name from Labour to Middle Management.
Are their solid middle class supporters happy that they are taxing education ?
Labour is fighting a class war but against their old friends. They are solidly middle class at the moment. Anything to the left that might help the working class is looked on with suspicion. Maybe they should change their name from Labour to Middle Management.
Are their solid middle class supporters happy that they are taxing education ?
No one can be happy with every policy. It is the majority of policies that count.
Labour is fighting a class war but against their old friends. They are solidly middle class at the moment. Anything to the left that might help the working class is looked on with suspicion. Maybe they should change their name from Labour to Middle Management.
Are their solid middle class supporters happy that they are taxing education ?
6-7% of children go to private school, the majority of middle class parents - let alone supporters of the Labour Party - are going to be sending their kids to state run schools.
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Quite so. Big Fail by me.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Quite so. Big Fail by me.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
I haven't committed anything like a serious enough sin for that penance.
Tettenhall is still nice. The Batham's Bitter and faggots and peas down at The Great Western near the railway station in Wolverhampton is worth a trip to the city in and of themselves.
I was visiting friends.
You'd have to strap me to a chair to watch GB News.
Tettenhall is still nice. The Batham's Bitter and faggots and peas down at The Great Western near the railway station in Wolverhampton is worth a trip to the city in and of themselves.
I was visiting friends.
A fine pub near to the most northern station on the GWR broad gauge line. It was one of the many pubs on the beat I was personally responsible for in the late 60s. I assume you must have travelled along one of the sections of my Holyhead Road especially The Rock.
You'd have to strap me to a chair to watch GB News.
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Quite so. Big Fail by me.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
I note that Chope, a man so dinosaurial that he is on the party modernisation committee, has weighed in with both feet firmly in his mouth.
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Quite so. Big Fail by me.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
I note that Chope, a man so dinosaurial that he is on the party modernisation committee, has weighed in with both feet firmly in his mouth.
I note that Chope, a man so dinosaurial that he is on the party modernisation committee, has weighed in with both feet firmly in his mouth.
!!! Words fail me !!! Have they really got a modernisation committee? If they have, have they really put Chope on it? I had the misfortune, through my work, to meet him 30+ years ago when he was briefly a minor sub minister in the Department of Transport. He was dense, didn't listen to anything anybody said and was a fossil even then, and in those days he was only in his 40s.
Not having watched this evenings debate, and very unlikely to, what has he said?
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Quite so. Big Fail by me.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
I note that Chope, a man so dinosaurial that he is on the party modernisation committee, has weighed in with both feet firmly in his mouth.
A silly remark which did not impress either candidate. The host for the debate was 'Chopper'( Chris Hope) not Chope.
Tettenhall is still nice. The Batham's Bitter and faggots and peas down at The Great Western near the railway station in Wolverhampton is worth a trip to the city in and of themselves.
I was visiting friends.
A fine pub near to the most northern station on the GWR broad gauge line. It was one of the many pubs on the beat I was personally responsible for in the late 60s. I assume you must have travelled along one of the sections of my Holyhead Road especially The Rock.
You'd have to strap me to a chair to watch GB News.
Tettenhall is still nice. The Batham's Bitter and faggots and peas down at The Great Western near the railway station in Wolverhampton is worth a trip to the city in and of themselves.
I was visiting friends.
A fine pub near to the most northern station on the GWR broad gauge line. It was one of the many pubs on the beat I was personally responsible for in the late 60s. I assume you must have travelled along one of the sections of my Holyhead Road especially The Rock.
You'd have to strap me to a chair to watch GB News.
It's hard as an outsider to quite get a sense of Badenoch and Jenrick. On the one hand, it seems that Badenoch really means what she says and that gets her in trouble whereas Jenrick seems to be trying to do what Starmer did when he ran for leadership in Labour and is trying to signal very hard that he is right wing, especially on immigration, when the truth is he is squarely from the center of the party, is hungry for power, and will say or do anything to get it.
Is Badenoch more Thatcherite (or even Trussite) in terms of being anti-government and anti-welfare than Jenrick? Would she be slightly less crazy on immigration than him? Does she want to keep the UK in the ECHR?
I'm amazed at how in the UK there politicians of color have had more success in coming to party leadership (and in coming close to it) in the Tory party than in the Labour Party. Why is this? Is it more because of what Tory party members are like or more because of the dynamics of the Tories in Parliament? And what does this say about Labour Party membership and Labour MPs?
Is Badenoch more Thatcherite (or even Trussite) in terms of being anti-government and anti-welfare than Jenrick? Would she be slightly less crazy on immigration than him? Does she want to keep the UK in the ECHR?
Neither of them are anti government or anti welfare. Neither of them are crazy on immigration. Badenoch would only want to leave the ECHR if it was really necessary.
They want to limit legal immigration and stop illegal immigration. Why would that be a problem ?
1. With the aging UK population we need a net inflow of working age people and families to fill positions as people retire, maintain tax income to fund pensions and health/social care. Or, we significantly change the way our society works (eg: no retirement for anyone in good health).
2. "Illegal immigration" is a fiction created by the Reform/Tories to call for something to be stopped. Irregular immigration on small boats across the Channel etc certainly exists, and is a direct result of government policies to close down normal routes for refugees seeking asylum. Reopen those routes and the market for criminals to take asylum seekers across the Channel disappears, and the boats stop.
They want to limit legal immigration and stop illegal immigration. Why would that be a problem ?
1. With the aging UK population we need a net inflow of working age people and families to fill positions as people retire, maintain tax income to fund pensions and health/social care. Or, we significantly change the way our society works (eg: no retirement for anyone in good health).
2. "Illegal immigration" is a fiction created by the Reform/Tories to call for something to be stopped. Irregular immigration on small boats across the Channel etc certainly exists, and is a direct result of government policies to close down normal routes for refugees seeking asylum. Reopen those routes and the market for criminals to take asylum seekers across the Channel disappears, and the boats stop.
Is entering the UK irregularly (ie, without permission) a crime under UK law? If someone does so, is deported, and attempts to enter again, can the government say, “It looks like you have a criminal record here because you entered before illegally so we aren’t likely to let you in now or if you are already in, let you stay.” ?
Is entering the UK irregularly (ie, without permission) a crime under UK law? If someone does so, is deported, and attempts to enter again, can the government say, “It looks like you have a criminal record here because you entered before illegally so we aren’t likely to let you in now or if you are already in, let you stay.” ?
Immigration Act 1971, Section 3: "Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a British citizen
(a)he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act;"
The government has wide-ranging powers to decide the rules under which foreigners shall be admitted to the UK.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act goes on to enumerate all the different ways you can commit an offence related to illegal entry (entering the UK when you require permission, but don't have it; overstaying your permission to stay in the UK.)
Is entering the UK irregularly (ie, without permission) a crime under UK law? If someone does so, is deported, and attempts to enter again, can the government say, “It looks like you have a criminal record here because you entered before illegally so we aren’t likely to let you in now or if you are already in, let you stay.” ?
Immigration Act 1971, Section 3: "Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a British citizen
(a)he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act;"
The government has wide-ranging powers to decide the rules under which foreigners shall be admitted to the UK.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act goes on to enumerate all the different ways you can commit an offence related to illegal entry (entering the UK when you require permission, but don't have it; overstaying your permission to stay in the UK.)
Prior to the recent Illegal Immigration Bill it was fairly straightforward that it was not a crime to enter the UK irregularly, provided you made you claim for asylum once you arrived. This is important as someone who sought asylum but was denied has still not committed a crime. It is only a crime if you then don't leave the country.
They want to limit legal immigration and stop illegal immigration. Why would that be a problem ?
1. With the aging UK population we need a net inflow of working age people and families to fill positions as people retire, maintain tax income to fund pensions and health/social care. Or, we significantly change the way our society works (eg: no retirement for anyone in good health).
2. "Illegal immigration" is a fiction created by the Reform/Tories to call for something to be stopped. Irregular immigration on small boats across the Channel etc certainly exists, and is a direct result of government policies to close down normal routes for refugees seeking asylum. Reopen those routes and the market for criminals to take asylum seekers across the Channel disappears, and the boats stop.
Irregular immigration is the new woke name for illegal immigration.
I agree with number 1 but we should be looking for people of good character.
Prior to the recent Illegal Immigration Bill it was fairly straightforward that it was not a crime to enter the UK irregularly, provided you made you claim for asylum once you arrived. This is important as someone who sought asylum but was denied has still not committed a crime. It is only a crime if you then don't leave the country.
There are three categories of people who do not have a right to remain in the UK.
1. Those who entered illegally. Which means they made an entry to the country without leave to do so and did not then make a prompt request for asylum.
2. Those that have claimed asylum and had their claim turned down and have been ordered to leave the country.
3. Those who were in the UK on a time limited visa that has expired.
1. is very rare - especially if we're talking about the small boats where Home Office figures suggest 98% claim asylum.*
2. Note here that up until the point of not leaving when the asylum claim (and appeals, if any) have been unsuccessful, no crime has been committed.
3. This is the most common group by far, according to the Home Office. Here, the crime lies not in the act of immigration but later, after visa expiry.
So, even if you don't like anyone who comes to the UK by any means, the terms 'illegal immigration' and especially 'illegal immigrant' are not informative at all. As well as being incorrect in law.
So I'll ask you again: What is illegal immigration?
AFZ
*The Illegal Immigration Act basically made it impossible to claim asylum in the UK.
There's a category 4, possibly a subset of 3, where people enter the country on a visa and break the terms of that visa (of course, when you have to leave could be a term for a visa which is why it might be a variation on 3). An example could be a visa to allow someone to study at a university would usually have a limit on how much paid work the student can do, and if they work longer hours than allowed they'd be in breach of their visa and no longer have a right to remain here (subject to conclusion of any appeals against that decision).
Never mind immigration, it's the "new woke name" that I enjoy from Telford. This is the new woke name for disinformation. By the way, have you heard that National Trust scones are unspeakably woke, you're better off taking your own sandwiches.
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
To be fair, I'd enjoy this bit: "The Discovery+ documentary will also follow his failed General Election campaign after he spectacularly lost his North East Somerset seat last week while standing next to a man dressed as baked beans."
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
To be fair, I'd enjoy this bit: "The Discovery+ documentary will also follow his failed General Election campaign after he spectacularly lost his North East Somerset seat last week while standing next to a man dressed as baked beans."
Having recently observed Rees-Mogg's show it seems that his technique is to invite a rather ineffective left-wing voice onto his panel in order to act as "easy meat" for his sympathisers.
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
To be fair, I'd enjoy this bit: "The Discovery+ documentary will also follow his failed General Election campaign after he spectacularly lost his North East Somerset seat last week while standing next to a man dressed as baked beans."
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
To be fair, I'd enjoy this bit: "The Discovery+ documentary will also follow his failed General Election campaign after he spectacularly lost his North East Somerset seat last week while standing next to a man dressed as baked beans."
He had Baked Beans man on his GBN show.
So it is an entertainment channel after all.
Is this a bit like Fox News claiming it's an entertainment channel as its reason for broadcasting bullshit?
Comments
And, sadly, Kinnock was dismissed as a 'Welsh wind-bag.'
I feel his pain.
Neil got things a bit back to front.
He had.. Celebration followed by result.
It is particularly difficult to deduce from the electoral figures this time round what the actual size is of Labour and LibDem support is in the country.
I think the only thing one can definitely say is that nobody voted tactically for Reform Ltd. Disgusting though it may be that anyone should vote for them, I think one has to accept that all their voters were expressing their first preference.
Indeed. You would think he'd have learned from David Steel's 'return to your constituencies and prepare for government' gaff from 1981.
Incidentally, I was down in Wolverhampton and Tettenhall yesterday.
There was such widespread determination that turnout was down (and on the order of where it would be in elections in which the results are foregone conclusions - 2001, 2005 etc).
You'd expect these tactical votes would show up somewhere, and they generally don't (despite the Lib Dems benefiting from some tactical voting in the South West their total votes were also down).
Lib Dem support is partly borrowed from Labour, but it seems it was the collapse of the Tory vote (and that of the SNP in Scotland) that benefited Labour, rather than either large numbers of people voting tactically for Labour or a good 'get out the base' operation. In that sense it wasn't like elections like 1997 (see @Leorning Cniht's point)
Lib-Dems - lovely people, heart in the right place, don't get economics or business; could run a great B&B, no good at anything bigger
Labour - may get economics but don't get business; really don't get either countryside or rural economics; a tendency to fight the class war of the 1930s, convinced of their own virtue so can come across as priggish
Tories (in their current form) - may get business, sometimes get economics; resisting class war of the 1930s, suspicious of anything "green"; have a sneaking admiration for Farage but loathe Trump
Reform - it hasn't been the same since the War (which war unspecified); all change is bad; best seen as the really annoying President of your local bowls club
Greens - Lib-Dems through a megaphone; distrust all business, view farmers with suspicion, don't see the need for modern infrastructure; know they are right
Now I'll grab my trusty tin helmet and take refuge in my Anderson Shelter.
Right, but that's not class war, because Labour has largely disowned any class interest.
Why So? I keep reading on facebook that Wolverhampton is run down. I lived in Tettenhall for 6 years in the 70s and 80s. It's still nice I believe. There are two rivers in Tettenhall. The one at the bottom of the hill finishes up in the English channel and the one at the top finishes up in the North sea
Are their solid middle class supporters happy that they are taxing education ?
No one can be happy with every policy. It is the majority of policies that count.
6-7% of children go to private school, the majority of middle class parents - let alone supporters of the Labour Party - are going to be sending their kids to state run schools.
Bristol Channel I'd have thought.
Anyway, are we all watching GB News at the moment. It's the Big Leadership debate between Kemi and Bobby
I haven't committed anything like a serious enough sin for that penance.
I was visiting friends.
You'd have to strap me to a chair to watch GB News.
I note that Chope, a man so dinosaurial that he is on the party modernisation committee, has weighed in with both feet firmly in his mouth.
He's a determined contrarian.
Not having watched this evenings debate, and very unlikely to, what has he said?
A silly remark which did not impress either candidate. The host for the debate was 'Chopper'( Chris Hope) not Chope.
Entertainment?!
Officially, yes.
Is Badenoch more Thatcherite (or even Trussite) in terms of being anti-government and anti-welfare than Jenrick? Would she be slightly less crazy on immigration than him? Does she want to keep the UK in the ECHR?
I'm amazed at how in the UK there politicians of color have had more success in coming to party leadership (and in coming close to it) in the Tory party than in the Labour Party. Why is this? Is it more because of what Tory party members are like or more because of the dynamics of the Tories in Parliament? And what does this say about Labour Party membership and Labour MPs?
If it could win her an election...
Mickey Mouse would disagree with you here.
They want to limit legal immigration and stop illegal immigration. Why would that be a problem ?
What is illegal immigration?
2. "Illegal immigration" is a fiction created by the Reform/Tories to call for something to be stopped. Irregular immigration on small boats across the Channel etc certainly exists, and is a direct result of government policies to close down normal routes for refugees seeking asylum. Reopen those routes and the market for criminals to take asylum seekers across the Channel disappears, and the boats stop.
Is entering the UK irregularly (ie, without permission) a crime under UK law? If someone does so, is deported, and attempts to enter again, can the government say, “It looks like you have a criminal record here because you entered before illegally so we aren’t likely to let you in now or if you are already in, let you stay.” ?
Immigration Act 1971, Section 3: "Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a British citizen
(a)he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act;"
The government has wide-ranging powers to decide the rules under which foreigners shall be admitted to the UK.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act goes on to enumerate all the different ways you can commit an offence related to illegal entry (entering the UK when you require permission, but don't have it; overstaying your permission to stay in the UK.)
Prior to the recent Illegal Immigration Bill it was fairly straightforward that it was not a crime to enter the UK irregularly, provided you made you claim for asylum once you arrived. This is important as someone who sought asylum but was denied has still not committed a crime. It is only a crime if you then don't leave the country.
Irregular immigration is the new woke name for illegal immigration.
I agree with number 1 but we should be looking for people of good character.
Let me help you out here:
Irregular immigration is the new long-established, woke name correct legal term for (what is often mislabelled as) 'illegal immigration.'
And if you think about it the term illegal immigration makes very little sense anyway. As I said, above;
There are three categories of people who do not have a right to remain in the UK.
1. Those who entered illegally. Which means they made an entry to the country without leave to do so and did not then make a prompt request for asylum.
2. Those that have claimed asylum and had their claim turned down and have been ordered to leave the country.
3. Those who were in the UK on a time limited visa that has expired.
1. is very rare - especially if we're talking about the small boats where Home Office figures suggest 98% claim asylum.*
2. Note here that up until the point of not leaving when the asylum claim (and appeals, if any) have been unsuccessful, no crime has been committed.
3. This is the most common group by far, according to the Home Office. Here, the crime lies not in the act of immigration but later, after visa expiry.
So, even if you don't like anyone who comes to the UK by any means, the terms 'illegal immigration' and especially 'illegal immigrant' are not informative at all. As well as being incorrect in law.
So I'll ask you again: What is illegal immigration?
AFZ
*The Illegal Immigration Act basically made it impossible to claim asylum in the UK.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13985969/First-look-Meet-Rees-Moggs-discovery-plus.html
You know, I'm not at all sure I do want to see that show, but I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wants to keep up with the Kardashians as well, so I don't think my bemusement is specific to Sir Jacob and his family.
To be fair, I'd enjoy this bit: "The Discovery+ documentary will also follow his failed General Election campaign after he spectacularly lost his North East Somerset seat last week while standing next to a man dressed as baked beans."
He had Baked Beans man on his GBN show.
So it is an entertainment channel after all.
Is this a bit like Fox News claiming it's an entertainment channel as its reason for broadcasting bullshit?