Snap General Election called

[Puja]

It was also a massive white elephant. A few hundred asylum seekers at most would be sent to Rwanda, when the number awaiting a decision on whether or not they can remain is nearer 100k. Better to put the energy into processing claims properly and allowing asylum seekers to apply outside of the UK than this distraction politics rubbish.

I believe the logic was that it was "a deterrent", because desperate people who are willing to take a cheap dinghy across the English channel are well known for checking the Telegraph for the latest immigration policy before making decisions about their family's future.

Puja

It's made possible by the total inability of this government to place themselves in someone else's shoes (sometimes known as empathy). They just think 'shit, I'd be terrified to be deported to Rwanda' hence they assume it will stop people (who may be in a slightly different life position than the average Tory cabinet minister) from getting on boats.

. . . and the inability to admit that leaving the EU and it's reciprocal arrangement to return migrants to the first EU state they entered might just be a factor in the massive rise in boat numbers over the last few years.

It's just baffling to me that they think people in migrant camps in Calais are even going to know about the minutiae of UK policy. It's not like the people smugglers are going to warn them they might be deported when they reach the other end and make sure they're in an educated position before robbing them blind and shoving them on an inflatable.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

It was also a massive white elephant. A few hundred asylum seekers at most would be sent to Rwanda, when the number awaiting a decision on whether or not they can remain is nearer 100k. Better to put the energy into processing claims properly and allowing asylum seekers to apply outside of the UK than this distraction politics rubbish.

I believe the logic was that it was "a deterrent", because desperate people who are willing to take a cheap dinghy across the English channel are well known for checking the Telegraph for the latest immigration policy before making decisions about their family's future.

Puja

It's made possible by the total inability of this government to place themselves in someone else's shoes (sometimes known as empathy). They just think 'shit, I'd be terrified to be deported to Rwanda' hence they assume it will stop people (who may be in a slightly different life position than the average Tory cabinet minister) from getting on boats.

. . . and the inability to admit that leaving the EU and it's reciprocal arrangement to return migrants to the first EU state they entered might just be a factor in the massive rise in boat numbers over the last few years.

Bingo.

All this energy is a result of their push for a hard Brexit. OK, its what the UK voted for (apparently) but this is a problem of their own making which they are very reluctant to admit and equally reluctant to look at any alternative for other than trying to push boats back to France or fly asylum seekers somewhere, anywhere.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I believe the logic was that it was "a deterrent", because desperate people who are willing to take a cheap dinghy across the English channel are well known for checking the Telegraph for the latest immigration policy before making decisions about their family's future.

Puja

It's made possible by the total inability of this government to place themselves in someone else's shoes (sometimes known as empathy). They just think 'shit, I'd be terrified to be deported to Rwanda' hence they assume it will stop people (who may be in a slightly different life position than the average Tory cabinet minister) from getting on boats.

. . . and the inability to admit that leaving the EU and it's reciprocal arrangement to return migrants to the first EU state they entered might just be a factor in the massive rise in boat numbers over the last few years.

Bingo.

All this energy is a result of their push for a hard Brexit. OK, its what the UK voted for (apparently) but this is a problem of their own making which they are very reluctant to admit and equally reluctant to look at any alternative for other than trying to push boats back to France or fly asylum seekers somewhere, anywhere.

What I don't get is Labour's failure to call them on it. I can see Starmer's strategy is to cravenly pretend that Brexit is fine but why pretend that Johnson's exit agreement is anything other than a total disaster? He should be totally blaming the boats on the Tories and saying he'll fix it because he actually understands the problem.

[cashead]

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[Sandydragon]

It's made possible by the total inability of this government to place themselves in someone else's shoes (sometimes known as empathy). They just think 'shit, I'd be terrified to be deported to Rwanda' hence they assume it will stop people (who may be in a slightly different life position than the average Tory cabinet minister) from getting on boats.

. . . and the inability to admit that leaving the EU and it's reciprocal arrangement to return migrants to the first EU state they entered might just be a factor in the massive rise in boat numbers over the last few years.

Bingo.

All this energy is a result of their push for a hard Brexit. OK, its what the UK voted for (apparently) but this is a problem of their own making which they are very reluctant to admit and equally reluctant to look at any alternative for other than trying to push boats back to France or fly asylum seekers somewhere, anywhere.

What I don't get is Labour's failure to call them on it. I can see Starmer's strategy is to cravenly pretend that Brexit is fine but why pretend that Johnson's exit agreement is anything other than a total disaster? He should be totally blaming the boats on the Tories and saying he'll fix it because he actually understands the problem.

Mentioning Brexit at all could do Starmer more harm than good. Better to let the Tories look inept

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bingo.

All this energy is a result of their push for a hard Brexit. OK, its what the UK voted for (apparently) but this is a problem of their own making which they are very reluctant to admit and equally reluctant to look at any alternative for other than trying to push boats back to France or fly asylum seekers somewhere, anywhere.

What I don't get is Labour's failure to call them on it. I can see Starmer's strategy is to cravenly pretend that Brexit is fine but why pretend that Johnson's exit agreement is anything other than a total disaster? He should be totally blaming the boats on the Tories and saying he'll fix it because he actually understands the problem.

Mentioning Brexit at all could do Starmer more harm than good. Better to let the Tories look inept

Yeah, I know his strategy is to do nothing and let them destroy themselves and that's similar to Blair's strategy up to 1997, but:

1) Blair built his image, the New Labour brand, the 'idea' of the Third Way. These were all positive things - albeit really just PR bullshit - but nonetheless unique selling points - reasons to vote for Labour not the Tories despite almost identical policies. Starmer has developed very few positives for himself or Labour. It's all really just 'were not x like the Tories are'. This will evaporate if a plausible new face gets to front the Tories and as memories fade.

2) Having no positions will mean not getting much done. It'll mean tinkering with the status quo and at best minor improvements. That will not give us the turnaround we need and will seriously disappoint after 5 years, especially with most of the press tearing it to bits.

I think he'll win the next election, but the one after that? Only if the Tories implode/go far right.

[Which Tyler]

1) Blair built his image, the New Labour brand, the 'idea' of the Third Way. These were all positive things - albeit really just PR bullshit - but nonetheless unique selling points - reasons to vote for Labour not the Tories despite almost identical policies. Starmer has developed very few positives for himself or Labour. It's all really just 'were not x like the Tories are'. This will evaporate if a plausible new face gets to front the Tories and as memories fade.

2) Having no positions will mean not getting much done. It'll mean tinkering with the status quo and at best minor improvements. That will not give us the turnaround we need and will seriously disappoint after 5 years, especially with most of the press tearing it to bits.

3) I think he'll win the next election, but the one after that? Only if the Tories implode/go far right.

1) Yes
2) He's not open about his positions and policies, that really doesn't mean that he doesn't have any. I've no idea what they are, and everyone seem to want to imprint their preference/fears onto him, but I genuinely do doubt that he'll govern the same way he opposes.
3) Go?

[Son of Mathonwy]

1) Blair built his image, the New Labour brand, the 'idea' of the Third Way. These were all positive things - albeit really just PR bullshit - but nonetheless unique selling points - reasons to vote for Labour not the Tories despite almost identical policies. Starmer has developed very few positives for himself or Labour. It's all really just 'were not x like the Tories are'. This will evaporate if a plausible new face gets to front the Tories and as memories fade.

2) Having no positions will mean not getting much done. It'll mean tinkering with the status quo and at best minor improvements. That will not give us the turnaround we need and will seriously disappoint after 5 years, especially with most of the press tearing it to bits.

3) I think he'll win the next election, but the one after that? Only if the Tories implode/go far right.

1) Yes
2) He's not open about his positions and policies, that really doesn't mean that he doesn't have any. I've no idea what they are, and everyone seem to want to imprint their preference/fears onto him, but I genuinely do doubt that he'll govern the same way he opposes.
3) Go?

2) Well, I've given up being optimistic about Starmer having some good stuff that he's keeping in reserve. I hope I'm wrong.
3) I'm thinking if Braverman or Badenoch get the leadership. (Or Farage . . . but they couldn't get that desperate could they?? Anything is possible if they think it'll get them votes.)

[Son of Mathonwy]

It seems that the government has tasked civil servants with monitoring experts for any sign of criticism, and then blacklisting/deplatforming those who fall foul, probably in breach of data protection, equality and human rights legislation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-revealed

[Sandydragon]

It seems that the government has tasked civil servants with monitoring experts for any sign of criticism, and then blacklisting/deplatforming those who fall foul, probably in breach of data protection, equality and human rights legislation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-revealed

Its a disgraceful assault on free speech, although it should be said that its not just the government which decides to 'cancel' people with views they don't like.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It seems that the government has tasked civil servants with monitoring experts for any sign of criticism, and then blacklisting/deplatforming those who fall foul, probably in breach of data protection, equality and human rights legislation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-revealed

Its a disgraceful assault on free speech, although it should be said that its not just the government which decides to 'cancel' people with views they don't like.

It could leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy. Just a little.

[Sandydragon]

It seems that the government has tasked civil servants with monitoring experts for any sign of criticism, and then blacklisting/deplatforming those who fall foul, probably in breach of data protection, equality and human rights legislation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-revealed

Its a disgraceful assault on free speech, although it should be said that its not just the government which decides to 'cancel' people with views they don't like.

It could leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy. Just a little.

Agreed, after all they have been anti-cancel culture previously.

[Puja]

Its a disgraceful assault on free speech, although it should be said that its not just the government which decides to 'cancel' people with views they don't like.

It could leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy. Just a little.

Agreed, after all they have been anti-cancel culture previously.

There's also a fairly vast difference between no-platforming someone because of bigoted or hateful views and the government looking to silence people who criticise them. I can understand why a free-speech absolutist might be against both, but there's no doubt that the latter is significantly more problematic.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Not to mention that the whole point of free speech isn't that there are no consequences, but that there are no legal/governmental consequences.

[Son of Mathonwy]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

[Sandydragon]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

[Son of Mathonwy]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

Yeah, I'm sure they won't misuse our personal medical data.

[Stom]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

There are plenty of other almost identical products out there that do as good if not better jobs.

But they don't have the neo-fascist contacts this shower have.

Stop defending nazis, ffs.

[Which Tyler]

[Stom]

I went to a very, very conservative school. And they were heavily involved with the Young Conservatives.

Which meant I got to spend an evening rubbing shoulders with the cream of the crop of the Tory party...

This meant a room full of old, white men, the leading star of which was...Liam Fox. Lol.

Odious cwnts the lot of them and I'm glad to see the Young Conservatives cease.

[Sandydragon]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

There are plenty of other almost identical products out there that do as good if not better jobs.

But they don't have the neo-fascist contacts this shower have.

Stop defending nazis, ffs.

Don’t be so utterly ridiculous. Come back and try that again when an adult thought enters your head.

[Sandydragon]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

Yeah, I'm sure they won't misuse our personal medical data.

Depends what contract the purchasing authority has in place to
Manage any personal data as per DPA. These contracts are awarded on a basis of functional competence and cost. I’ve been involved in several that are similar. Apart from some very specific circumstances the ownership of the company wishing to bid isn’t taken into consideration.

Sorry if that bursts any conspiracy bubbles but that’s the way it almost always works.

[Donny osmond]

So Palantir will get to 'look after' our medical data.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... m-palantir

Not sure what's most worrying, that Palantir's owner is a Trump-backer who hates the NHS or that he thought it was a great idea to name his company after Sauron's spying mind-control device:

Palantir have been earning government contracts for ages. The owner might be a bit 'interesting' but the product is decent.

Yeah, I'm sure they won't misuse our personal medical data.

They're already involved in using NHS data so I'd say that horse has bolted, if it's going to bolt. Plus it's a partnership with Accenture so if Palantir are going to be naughty, they're either going to drag Accenture down with them which would presumably cause more problems than they really need, or they'll have to hide their activities from Accenture, which would be a site more difficult, assuming Accenture are interested in adhering to personal data protection laws.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm not claiming there's any conspiracy. This is a question of the ethics and corporate leadership of the company that will be looking after our private data. The BMA is against it. And as David Davis (of all people) pointed out, even if Palantir behaved properly, its reputation would lower the public's trust in the scheme, which might bring about its failure due to too many opt-outs.

Unless Accenture's role specifically includes the task of monitoring Panantir's operations for unethical activity its very unlikely they would be able to pick it up.

[Donny osmond]

First paragraph, absolutely agree, all fair points.

2nd para, not sure about that, you don't have to monitor for unethical activities to see them happening. And when those activities relate to data protection and all the focus that will come from your first point, I'd say Accenture would (should) be being more than vigilant given the risk to their reputation from anything untoward happening.