RayC

I don't think that deportation will be necessary as Truss will probably depart for the US under her steam: There appears to be a bigger market for her crackpot ideas in the US than the UK.

That's alright then (sarcasm alert)

Therefore, Napoleon was an Englishman?🤷

What deterrents are you proposing exactly? Australia's problem with illegal mitigation is totally different to Europe's; Australia's is overstayers, Europe's is illegal entry. According to the Refugee Council of Australia figures only 273 people were intercepted at sea or arrived by boat in Australia in 2022 and 2023. Unless hoardes of people are arriving undetected, it's a non-problem. I suppose that this could be down to an efficient Australian deterrent and border force, but imo it is more likely due to very few people trying to enter Australia illegally by boat.

Notwithstanding that I disagree that the UK is any more of a magnet for illegal immigrants than countries such as Germany, it's fair to point out that in the absence of a solution which destroys the smuggling gangs, deterrents are necessary. (Incidentally, I assume that you are not suggesting starving illegal immigrants). However, the government faces no end of problems in this regard. Ignoring my misgivings about the treatment of these individuals, I would still question what form these deterrents should take: For example, would the Rwandan plan be successful i.e. have the desired deterrent effect? Is it financially viable? Other suggestions such as returning illegal migrants to France are imo non-starters unless the UK wants to provoke a major diplomatic incident with the EU (I discount blowing up the boats for the same reason as HeffieHandbag: Imo no civilised person should even contemplate the idea). Controlling illegal immigration might not be impossible but - to restate the blindingly obvious - it certainly isn't easy.

Well said. It really is that simple. How anyone could disagree with your statement is beyond me

I agree and not it's not just France. I dare say every European country holds a similar view which, imo, is why Europe as a whole needs to act as one and search for a co-ordinated, collaborative solution to the problem.

Why am I not surprised that you choose to ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit your narrative? Apparently nothing must be allowed to infringe upon your individual sovereignty, even if it means that others suffer the consequences: 'No accountability and no responsibility' appears to be your mantra.

Not exactly the most objective of interviewees, but an interesting listen nonetheless. https://on.ft.com/4dzrxSo (Note: Comments about MSM bias are unnecessary. They are taken as given)

I doubt that I am alone in thinking that most of the posts in this thread are ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... oh, yes .... weird!😉

You've hit the nail on the head. The key is destroying the gangs that arrange for illegal immigrants to enter the country. The question is how do you do that? I imagine that most European governments would like to know the answer to that question. Until then, we are stuck with those who will do no more than complain about any Labour government policy without giving it a second thought or a chance to succeed (or fail).

That sounds a lot like the argument used by the gun lobby in the US. Could be a coincidence (I doubt it) but there are a lot fewer deaths from firearms in the UK - where ownership of guns is restricted - than the US. Maybe we should restrict ownership and cross-breeding of dogs and see if that has any effect.

I'll rephrase. Why join (and continue) a "futile" discussion?

Then why did you instigate it in that case?

As I said previously, you are employing a 'sliding doors' type argument. This renders any discussion meaninglessness. What would have happened if the IRA had succeeded in assassinating Thatcher? What if Gordon Brown - not Tony Blair - had succeeded John Smith? No doubt scenarios can be modelled, but there are an almost infinite number of permutations and underlining assumptions, so imo it is a meaningless exercise. Very few, if any, government policy decisions can be definitely categorised as 'good' or 'bad'. What we should do is make an 'informed' opinion based on the evidence. In the case of the privatisation of public goods in the '80s - and at the risk of over-generalising - I would contend that the evidence suggests that it did more harm than good.

Alternatively, you could supply a link(s) detailing how the '80s privatisations benefitted the UK and then we could have a discussion about the relative merits of our cases. There are most probably studies which considered alternative scenarios to the mass privatisations of the '80s. I note that you ignore the evidence I put forward about Railtrack.

It's a 'sliding doors' argument. Using your rationale few, if any, government policies or decisions can ever be judged as we can't know what would happened if the alternative(s) had been enacted. I have already supplied links about the effects of the privatisation of some utilities e.g. water in the 1980s. Imo this evidence suggests that the negative effects outweigh the positive. As for a direct point of comparison. What about Railtrack? The privatised company went into administration. Without government intervention, the UK would have had no functioning rail service. There cannot be any doubt that would have been a negative outcome.

Well, that's pretty definite and final. All I offer in reply is, 'Have a nice day'😉

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of the general public. Imo the problem WAS the 'philosophy' of privatisation (capitalism) - at least as practiced by Thatcher - which seemingly centred on the idea that all regulation was bad and that private sector monopolies were more efficient than their public counterparts. As I said previously, evidence over the last 40 years suggests otherwise and that public goods e.g. water, gas, electricity, telecomms, etc, which are natural monopolies and require large capital investment, are better off being centrally managed by the state.

I agree that judgements are often passed too quickly - look no further than threads on this forum for proof of this: Labour is a failure after two months in office!! - however, I would suggest that 40 years is more than enough elapsed time to start drawing conclusions regarding the costs and benefits of privatisation. Using the very narrow measurement of direct government support, privatisation might be judged a success. Even here there must be a caveat: For example, the privatisation and subsequent enforced re-nationalisation of the rail network (Railtrack) was nothing but an unmitigated disaster by whatever criterion is used. I would also argue that from a wider economic and societal perspective, privatisation has been a failure. Privatisation was a contributory factor in the increase in unemployment in the UK in the '80s. Not only were there direct costs e.g. payment of unemployment benefits, there were indirect economic costs in the reduction in consumer spending, etc: The societal costs were even greater with communities being devastated. It may be difficult to quantify costs definitely but - rather like Brexit - I would argue that the body of evidence points overwhelming to privatisation having a net negative effect. https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1980s/#:~:text=The upshot of all of,time since the interwar depression. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-size-fiscal-multiplier

Do you think that the privatisation of the various utilities in the UK in the '80s has been a success? I would argue that by most criterion (economic, efficiency environmental, etc), the opposite is true.

Socialism and democracy are not incompatible.

Can you post a link please.

See also my reply to Liverpoollou. The key phrase is, "UK banks have the DISCRETION (my caps) to close accounts for non-residents" However, to repeat: There is NO regulation i.e. legal restriction, which prevents UK banks from either offering new accounts to those who live overseas* or forcing UK banks to close the accounts of those who live overseas. These are self-imposed restrictions by the individual UK banks. * In practice it appears all but impossible for an account to be opened.

That may well be the case but it is completely different from your original proposition i.e. "It is all to do with banking regulations that state that only UK residents can have a UK bank account", which I maintain is untrue in the absence of a link to the contrary from a relevant authority e.g. UK government/ FCA website. The bottom line is as follows: 1. It is NOT illegal to either open or maintain a UK bank account while living abroad however ... 2. It is extremely difficult (in practice, perhaps, Impossible?) to open a new UK bank account while living abroad 3. SOME banks may close your UK account if you are living/ relocate abroad. Again, this not a legal requirement; it is policy put in place by the individual banks and the extent to which this restriction is enforced depends on the individual bank. My own experience - and that of friends - is that HSBC appear to be less strict in closing accounts. Others may have had a different experience. I am not usually pedantic and I am not trying to score points, but it is important to be clear about this matter and not post misleading information which might possibly, cause unnecessary worry to some individuals.