Salisbury Fox

Again, I am not having a go at him for informing people. My initial response was in relation to it being evidence of him being a man of the people which given he did none of the ground work is, I would suggest a poor example to use.

My point was that this can hardly be used as an example of being a man of the people given he is just announcing it.

It was Starmer who legislated it. Even Sunak committed to it and so he’s not having to do much work on this one. Seems happy to take credit though.

I think you are downplaying the deficit a little, given it was around £160 billion in 2010 and wasn’t simply a short term problem that disappeared when the financial crisis ended. It’s worth mentioning that our fiscal position was further complicated by Labour’s extensive use of PFI, which created substantial long term obligations (estimated to be £130 billion in 2010) that were not reflected in conventional public sector debt.

Black economy you mean?

Salisbury Fox respectfully disagrees…

My point is simply that every option has negative consequences. It’s about trade offs to try and ensure a sustainable and humane approach, not whether one sides cares and the other doesn’t.

As I said, I agree that tackling the root causes is essential. However, the fact that the long term solution is global doesn’t mean countries shouldn’t make difficult decisions about what they can sustainably accommodate today.

I don’t disagree that we should do more to address the root causes, although I am sceptical that anything other than global action would work. I just don’t think that supporting effective border control means accepting human suffering. A government can, and arguably should, do both.

I think you’re presenting a false choice, supporting firm immigration controls on the basis of sustainability doesn’t mean accepting human suffering.

I don’t think the solution is as simple as suggested for a number of reasons, including: If the UK made itself significantly easier to access, it could become a more attractive destination than many others increasing volume. Those who are ineligible or fail the process could continue to use traffickers. Of course those that fail should be subject to removal for but that is still not an easy process. Processing centres may not be able to handle the volume meaning backlogs appear. There is also the practical question of housing, public services and employment. Any expansion would need to consider whether there is enough capacity, particularly given existing pressures such as housing shortages, youth unemployment and the impact of automation/AI on future jobs.

It certainly would be hypocritical given the past social media messaging that will consistently be brought up. I do believe that he would be better advised to go for an election immediately as I can’t see anything materially being better in 3 or so years and so he would probably still get a majority albeit a significantly reduced one.

I agree that if you change party then there should be a by-election. I do however think that the consequences of changing leader should also result in a general election unless the new PM commits to the manifesto the party originally won a mandate for. Of course agreeing what represents a material change will be in the eyes of the beholder unless the deviation is very clear.

To be fair he won a huge majority despite that same media existing. I believe his main problem has been the perception that some of his government’s policies have been at odds with its stated focus on growth. Whether that’s fair or not, many see that as a contradiction.

1. Russia’s intent is to force Ukraine into its sphere of influence rather than destroying it. Dropping nukes would make them even more of a Pariah around the world and jeopardise the relationships with countries that have remained neutral or continued trading with them. 2. NATO clearly benefits from reducing Russia's war machine, but I’m sure that many countries in the alliance would rather spend their money elsewhere like we see playing out in the UK currently.