To think Kemi and Nigel will likely win the next UK election after making a pact of some kind and fighting on an immigration / identity politics platform?

[MumtananoBay]

Especially after Trump’s win today.

labour has a tiny lead at 27% today (6th nov, politico.eu polling )

tories have 27. Reform has 19.

so that’s a possible 46/27 which gives a right wing team up more MPs than Labour has now. (OFC in any pact they won’t get all those votes)

this Labour majority is paper thin. Everyone hates Keir.

thats not the part of EDI I and other object to. I and others object to the racist parts. Putting one "race" above another, is racist.

not to mention, most illegal immigrants are allowed to stay. That, and the legal route, needs to change. Dramatically downward. Skilled people can stay, others can't.

What has Nigel got to offer? 4 MPs and the possibility (nb "possibility") of delivering votes in seats the Tories already hold or could get with a slight shift from the other parties,

Farage talks a good game, but in reality?????

25% of the voting public and a king maker position over the tory party, thats what.

Like most Reform voters, you're light on facts. Asylum seekers aren't illegal because it's not illegal to claim asylum, no matter how you get into a country.

The legal route is in the UK unless it's through a refugee scheme such as Hong Kong.

Rwanda was illegal, it's against international law to send people to countries that don't comply with legal standards. It was a complete waste of money.

If you're concerned about how much asylum seekers cost, then you should be concerned about how many millions were wasted on the Rwanda scheme.

Even if the Tories tear up the Human Rights Act and come out of the ECHR, you can't deprive asylum seekers of their human rights. You're also voting to deprive yourself of your human rights - which is a bit silly.

If you're worried about immigration, then focus on how many people the government let in, around 800k a year, to work and study in the UK. Asylum seekers are around 3% of immigrants per year.

Yes. I mean we change the laws so it is illegal. And deport a lot of people here now. And yes, I do mean deprive asylum seekers of their human rights. I consider losing the culture of my country to be too high a price to pay. This isn't a gotcha, I'm not ashamed of it. This is what I and a very large portion of the country think.

And at the same time, hugely tighten up legal migration so only the very highly skilled, educated and rich people can come in.

I think you’ll find it’s 14% of vote share.

Change the law so what's illegal? It's international customary law that asylum seekers can come here by small boats. You can't change the law but you can ignore it and break the law.

Where are you going to deport people? It's illegal to send people back to places where they're being persecuted and you need permission from the country to take people there. That's why we can't take people back to France - France won't take them back.

No, a large part of the country don't agree with you, you obviously subsist in an echo chamber. Reform won about 4 seats, that's not a large part of the country and their manifesto was uncosted tosh.

You don't seem to understand that the HRA and the ECHR protect everyone - that includes you. Secondly, the law surrounding refugees is customary, you can withdraw from the ECHR but the laws protecting refugees remain in place. The government can still be challenged.

It's pure hyperbole to say that British culture is being lost. The vast majority of people in the UK are British, not immigrants.

Deport to where exactly?

How could you deport to countries who refuse to take back refugees? has the UK enough Parachutes?

You could i suppose house people in unsanitary camps, guarded by the military, with orders to shoot anyone trying to escape or riot.

We could of course keep it out of sight/out of mind and sink boats in the channel and ban anyone from filming or reporting on it.

What do you think?

Or stop the RNLI rescuing people which was another of Reforms bright ideas

Being willing to deprive others of their human rights IS losing the best parts of the culture of our country. The culture of supporting fair play.. The culture of a country that rejected and eventually fought against fascism in the 30s and 40s, when almost all around us were succumbing. The cultural Christianity that values the peacemakers and the need to help the poor and the sick and yes, the immigrants ('I was a stranger and you took me in').

hugely tighten up legal migration so only the very highly skilled, educated and rich people can come in

And what do you think that will do to social care?

Social care? Who on earth is going to care for these carers when they grow old? Oh I know import more!

What's your alternative?

It's an interesting theory but ignores the fact that Badenoch is completely unelectable. When a party has been in power for years and has chewed up and spat out all their semi-competent politicians, it is left with the dregs. It takes a few years for them to cobble together an effective opposition.

Look at the Tories after their 1997 wipeout - they picked Hague as leader, then Duncan-Smith. Neither remotely electable, weak politicians. All the top-level Tories were either toxic in the public's eye or didn't want the job because they were on a hiding to nothing.

Look at Labour after the 2010 defeat. Miliband, then Corbyn. Weak, bland trash, then an extremist.

Where the Tories differ slightly is they've plumped for the extremist from the outset. They've effectively handed the keys to No. 10 to Starmer until 2034. Badenoch is not electable, by any stretch of the imagination.

Badenoch is not electable, by any stretch of the imagination.

What? She held Starmer's feet to the fire at PMQs.

This is in relation to other countries

As Trump is in, and the EU is facing its own volatility things will shift

We'll see what happens with German snap election if it goes ahead soon

And yes, I do mean deprive asylum seekers of their human rights. I consider losing the culture of my country to be too high a price to pay.

Whatever the culture of your country is it clearly isn't the culture of the United Kingdom. The European Convention on Human Rights is largely a British document intended to bring British values to a continent shattered by war (and the consequences of government by authoritarian fascists).

It was what Churchill referred to in 1948 when he said “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

The Convention was mainly written by British Conservative MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. Maxwell-Fyfe’s contribution to the Convention was so great that he's been described as “the doctor who brought the child to birth”.

And the United Kingdom was the first signatory on 4th November 1950.

What's my alternative to importing carers - and their families - and providing homes and schools and GPS and dentists for them - home grow our own - pay them well - train them well - crèches inbuilt into care homes - purpose built homes not trying to convert old hotels and Victorian houses and on and on - it certainly isn't rocket science

Yes the ECHR is the creation of an English government lawyer, and draws most of the content from English common law. It is an amazing piece of work.

As for Badenoch she was badly briefed and a clear delivery can’t mask a poor set of questions. She actually referred to things she failed to do herself, read from a script and managed to ask the bulk of her questions on foreign relations which voters don’t give a sod about and she can’t influence. Let’s see her do some domestic policy, because that is where all governments stumble. She is no longer a government minister and doesn’t have those resources- your questions need to be good. They weren’t.

I would hope the British are more intelligent than this.

Plus, Badenoch has said she wouldn't touch Farage with someone else’s bargepole, let alone hers. 👍

What concerns are they ignoring, bearing in mind that they could hardly magically put everything right in their first three months? What makes you so sure these concerns won't in the main be remedied over the next 4.5 years?

Agree her performance was mediocre at best - and once again she had to 'clarify' ie correct her mistake about defence spending in the budget in a statement after PMQs

Anyone can watch it online and make up their own mind if there was any holding Starmers feet to the fire

And? How does that mean that Badenoch congratulating Trump had "balls"? In fact, why did it even need balls, given that it's simply normal practice?

The Conservatives desperately need to attract back the moderate centrists if they are to survive, i.e. the sort of people who were driven away by Johnson and Truss - if they are reliant solely on right-wingers they will always be in danger of members seceding to Reform and similar. Unless Badenoch does one hell of a U turn on her policies she is not going to get anywhere with that.

also the political reporting today says she won todays PMQ.

Only if you are selective in the political reporting you read.