Couldn't agree more, awful person symptomatic of the incompetent government producing unworkable policies.
I agree with a lot ot this but with the caveat that I do not really think that the Democrats are much better than the Republicans. There is no real political Left in the US and we tend to confuse their notions of "liberal" as being Left-leaning. Amercians have little perception of Socialism and their views towards it are irrational and hostile. It always annoys me that people in Europe think that there is some sort of close relationship between the British and the Americans yet, in reality, there is a lack of intelligence over there which is of a frightening magnitude and that is difficult for the Brits to understand. I find it strange that we should still be allied with the Americans and that, if anything, Trump taught up that we cannot afford to be caught up with the policies of someone who is clearly unfit for office. America represents a lot of what is wrong about Capitalism and ultimately respect for the environment. I do not see how, in the 21st Century, we can persist with such strong markets when the planet is in such a bad state. It is a very difficult decision to think how the UK should align it's foreign policy. I feel uncomfortable having the Americans as allies yet they are far more preferable than Russia, India, the Middle East and China, although I feel that the latter will ultimate become sufficiently powerful that all nations will need to review their relationship with this country. There will be a point that will be reached where opposing China may not be at all feasible or practical. At the moment, it seems stupid that our ties with Europe have been broken albeit this is where the UK fits most comfortably within a geo-politcal scale. Despite language differences, we have more in common with our European friends than countries like America where people still consider Trump to be credible. At least in the UK people have come around to realising that Boris was totally inappropriate as a politcal leader and his stock as a serious politician has been totally destroyed.
Suella Braverman has denied Brexit is responsible for delays at the port of Dover after some passengers said they had been queueing up to 14 hours to have their passports checked. However, in an interview with the Observer a year ago, the port’s chief executive, Doug Bannister, admitted Brexit was causing longer processing times at the border. He said: “There will be improvements which are made. People will get slicker at reading passports, get slicker at lodging paperwork and checking paperwork. But we are in a different trading regime.”
Brexit was sold as 'Britain will regain control of our borders'. Well, we have, but one small subtlety of this is that other (EU) countries also have control of their borders, so they can insist on checking our passports. It's almost as if Brexit was mis-sold.
Who'd of thought the leavers and the right wing press would be mounting a campaign of lies and deceit. I think it's true to say that the hard brexshit negotiated led to the passport checks creating the delays. That and the customs declarations on goods making trade a bureaucratic nightmare. A predicted **** storm called scaremongering by the little Englanders.
This reminds me of the following: “Heavy Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.” Headline in The Times on 22 October, 1957
I saw part of the Kuenssberg interview, yesterday, in which Cruella denied any knowledge of the 2018 incident in which refugees protesting about food rations were gunned down. Cruella also didn’t want to talk about the lesser known fact, in our agreement, that the UK would take refugees from Rwanda. I wonder how many people were/are aware of this point in the agreement? The Home Secretary Has Insisted It Is Safe To Send Asylum Seekers To Rwanda After Being Confronted With Footage Of An Incident Where 12 Refugees Were Killed In A Protest Lizzy Buchan THE Home Secretary has insisted it is safe to send asylum seekers to Rwanda after being confronted with footage of an incident where 12 refugees were killed in a protest. Yesterday Suella Braverman claimed that she wasn’t aware of the 2018 case, when police fired live ammunition at refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo who were protesting over food rations. The case, which has been raised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, is referenced in the Home Office’s own country assessment of Rwanda. Labour’s Yvette Cooper also raised the incident in the House of Commons last year, when Priti Patel was Home Secretary. Ms Braverman said it was safe to deport migrants to Rwanda under the Government’s controversial plan. But when challenged over the incident, she said: “I’m not familiar with that particular case.” BBC presenter Laura Kuenssberg then showed her footage of the aftermath of the protest where the UN and eyewitnesses said live rounds were fired. Asked if she was still sure it was safe to send people to Rwanda, the Home Secretary said: “That might be 2018, we’re looking at 2023 and beyond. “The High Court, senior expert judges, have looked into the detail of our arrangement with Rwanda and found it to be a safe country and found our arrangements to be lawful.” Ms Braverman said refugees she had met in Rwanda recently had “nothing but gratitude and thanks” for the authorities for their treatment. “They have a track record of successfully re-settling and integrating people who are refugees or asylum seekers,” she added. “I think we’re on strong ground to say that Rwanda is a safe country. It is the right solution for us grappling with our small boats problem.” The 2018 incident is referred to in the Home Office’s own guidance on Rwanda from May last year. It states that refugees have sometimes protested at conditions inthe camps and the Rwandan government has “reportedly used excessive force in some instances”. It adds: “The last protest at which they allegedly did so took place in February 2018, when a number of refugees were arrested and killed.”
Love this fun protest at Sunak’s home, by Greenpeace, highlighting the need to upgrade our electric grid to make it more suitable for cheaper renewable energy.
Statistics showed there was not a single proven case of in-person voter impersonation last year. Makes you wonder why the government has spent £180m on voter ID that is expected largely to suppress Labour voters... Oh, hang on. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ed-as-uk-data-shows-no-cases-of-impersonation
I saw an interesting discussion about this on Twitter, where a couple of people were seriously saying that if young people couldn’t be bothered to get themselves Voter ID then it’s their own fault. So the new idea of democracy involves making it harder to vote. 60+ Oyster Cards are good, whereas Student Oyster Cards are not good. It’s so blatant it’s almost laughable, and yet people are trying to defend it.
I see that bellend Musk has changed the Twitter logo today to the Dogecoin dog. Dogecoin as a result has jumped 30% in value, so I suspect he'll sell his holding and then change it back to some other silly logo.
A fascinating gambit when he's already facing a lawsuit for pumping Dogecoin: https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-seeks-end-258-billion-dogecoin-lawsuit-2023-04-01/ I think that lawsuit is highly unlikely to succeed, but giving it more ammunition is a very Elon-like choice.
I really don’t get an argument against voter ID at all. Why wouldn’t you want a fairer election? If someone is too stupid to obtain a valid ID, I don’t want them deciding the fate of the country anyway
