Salisbury Fox

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.

Many of those responsibilities exist because they directly affect our security and prosperity. I think it’s fair to question how much we spend on defence and look for ways where we can reduce commitments perhaps through a greater reliance on allies, but that’s a different argument to these threats don’t matter or aren’t our responsibility.

I think you’re over simplifying things. The threats we face are much broader than defending the country and overseas territories from invasion. Defence must cover deterrence, protecting trade routes, securing air and sea space, meeting our NATO commitments, protecting undersea infrastructure, cyber threats, long range missile strikes, and far more.

Apparently £28 billion is needed just to function at the level they are now and so if the £13.5 billion figure is correct then there will be some huge cuts and loss of capability.

I’m inclined to agree, particularly if there’s a shift left or rightwards of the manifesto they were elected on.

Apologies, my bad. The person who is ultimately responsible has to be the person making the decision on whether to appoint them in the first place. The grey area that Starmer is obviously using is that his decision wasn’t an informed one, but given everything that is in the public domain it shows an appalling lack of judgement anyway. I agree with Kenny that it was likely that the appointment was being pushed by McSweeney with Starmer signing it off.