British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Pretty wild the IRGC is directly attacking Britain, but Britain is so demographically ****ed it has to grovel and apologize to outright IRGC supporters that have zero loyalty to Britain, and just view it as a tool to further their sectarian goals.
Britain is a completely fallen nation.
I a compared it to Lebanon in the past, but this might not be fair to Lebanon, which is absolutely showing little spine against Islamists lately.
At this point Britain should probably just accept the inevitability of the demographic realities and join BRICS.
I got as far as 'This message is hidden because Dunyain is on your ignore list.'
Families of failed asylum seekers will be offered up to £40,000 to leave the UK under a trial scheme announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
JFC, just make a sign saying 'free money, just come to Britain instead of anywhere else'
Why are they giving money to failed asylum seekers, free transport to the country they need to move back to is about the limit that's acceptable imo.
Pretty wild the IRGC is directly attacking Britain, but Britain is so demographically ****ed it has to grovel and apologize to outright IRGC supporters that have zero loyalty to Britain, and just view it as a tool to further their sectarian goals. Britain is a completely fallen nation. I a compared it to Lebanon in the past, but this might not be fair to Lebanon, which is abs
BRiTaInIStaN hAs FaLlEn.
Question: Is your X/Twitter feed permeated with alt right cartoons of English rose damsels draped in Union Jacks surrounded by hordes of evil looking slavering Muslims by any chance?
I think possibly 'Weak government attempting to appease its own woke backbenchers while also attempting to appease the Reform-inclined public, whose views are very different,' maybe covers it.
I don't hate it. It costs the majority far more than £10k per person to get here. I don't mind a carrot as long as there's also a stick. I know the countries aren't the same, but it seems to have made a positive impact in Denmark.
They get 7 days! to take it or risk forcible removal.
Whatever we think of the £10k, it's part of a hideous approach
Mahmood said the government would seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days.
They get 7 days! to take it or risk forcible removal.
Whatever we think of the £10k, it's part of a hideous approach
Well, Britain has to come up with a lot of money to pay Mauritius to give them the Chagos Islands. So I guess repatriating migrants who are a huge financial drain is one way to do it.
I don't hate it. It costs the majority far more than £10k per person to get here. I don't mind a carrot as long as there's also a stick. I know the countries aren't the same, but it seems to have made a positive impact in Denmark.
Ditto. On average, an asylum seeker costs over £100k for 4 years and potentially upwards of £400k if they remain
. Given current rates of 100k asylum applications a year, that's up to £10bn a year for a 4 year stay (i.e., applications that are eventually rejected), and £40bn a year if they remain permanently.
Hard to say whether this will be effective, but clearly it's better to pay them £10k to leave, than between £100-400k to stay.
£100k seems reasonable to feed and house someone for 4 years, and I assume that includes processing costs.
Not sure the 10k will move the needle. Might reduce the numbers here already, but ones thinking of coming could just see it as a way of getting reimbursed for the costs of trying to get here.
Anyone know why Starmer has been so slow to help the efforts that France are leading to bring its navy to help escort the oil tankers? Once again extremely weak leadership from Starmer and needs to go
Anyone know why Starmer has been so slow to help the efforts that France are leading to bring its navy to help escort the oil tankers? Once again extremely weak leadership from Starmer and needs to go
It's because he's desperately trying to appease Ed Miliband and Ed's fellow wokers in the Cabinet and party.
Anyone know why Starmer has been so slow to help the efforts that France are leading to bring its navy to help escort the oil tankers? Once again extremely weak leadership from Starmer and needs to go
He doesn't want the entire fleet sat on the bottom of the ocean?
Aircraft carrier is on the way. Unlikely to be sunk. It's effectively a USA asset carrying their planes. UK is being dragged in - starmer doesn't have the gumption to stick with what he probably believes*.
I see trump who has already won the war and told us not to bother joining after it was won is now asking for us (among others) to send warships.
* I accept it's really hard not to jump when told to as we are so stuck in the usa sphere now.
It's not, at this moment on Shiptracker it's tied up in Portsmouth close to HMS Victory. Full crew and aircraft are not embarked and there are no orders to sail as far as I know. They'd have to marshal an escort group first (fueller, anti-air destroyer, anti-sub frigate, nuclear hunter-killer sub at minimum).
I think they're trying to establish readiness for a carrier group to sail (difficult, because, due to neglect by both parties, we are in a capability gap till the new-build ships and subs become available and all the Type 45s complete their elaborate rebuilds, and we have very few ships not in maintenance), but no decision's been taken because basically the Americans don't seem to know what they're trying to achieve.
What the RN may do, as they have the assets and expertise in-theatre, is to use minehunter drones in the Strait of Hormuz, if it turns out that mines rather than missiles or attack boats are a problem. It's interesting / embarrassing that Trump, master of the most powerful navy the world has ever seen, is reduced to asking any number of countries including us, France and China to help secure the Strait.
It's interesting / embarrassing that Trump, master of the most powerful navy the world has ever seen, is reduced to asking any number of countries including us, France and China to help secure the Strait.
One theory is Trump wants to outsource this extremely dangerous work to anyone gullible to engage with the task without asking questions, while keeping any US naval ships well away. The sight of one of their flagships going down by the stern would not play well with an American public who are largely against him and this war.
On the other hand I think the UK probably should help if the US Navy are leading on this. Regardless of the reasons why Iran's regime are targeting shipping, they are still happy to murder civilians and cause an ecological catastrophe to maintain their grip on power, and that isn't okay.
**** Trump. He started this war, no one non-American should get killed because of that moron's hubris.
If the threat is mines, which it doesn't seem to be at the moment, we could offer minehunting drones without committing warships. If it's Shahed aerial drones as usual, the Americans need to put up their own surveillance and attack drones over that coastline to spot and hit the truck launchers. Can't be foolproof, but it should be possible if they make the effort.
I don't want any involvement in this war whatsoever. It's hard to see where nuclear retaliation would come from if the orange madman fired a nuke at Iran but I certainly don't want any part of it. The UK should scale back its overseas bases, send its US nuclear deterrent back whence it came and breath a sigh of relief that it wasn't sacrificed.
