This seems quite an important part of what's happening. People who might take a rational view of the issues - though I'm not saying this guy necessarily would - get kind of swept along by their feeling that it's all very difficult and urgent, and end up either cheering or tolerating horrors.

I bet that's just water off the goose's back

Thanks!

They didn't explicitly vote against it, and anyway migration is a fact, you can't vote on it. You can vote on controlling it. There has been endless legislation doing just that, and a lot of it has had the effect intended.

Agreed & 1997 Labour had Gordon Brown who'd thought about this stuff from a deep-rooted Labour perspective. So there was something to build policy on, and the deal was that Brown would lead on society and economy while Tony held the stage. I stuck with them then, and through to 2019. Not now.

Not only is the Govt analysis plain wrong - hardly analysis, in fact - but the straw man opponent of "would like to just wish it away" is positively insulting. No-one is wishing away the emboldened racism, we want it properly addressed, and not like this (Mahmood & Co could get off X for a start)

Also what is this claim from Webb that people were "banned from even talking about" the lab leak theory at the time? Does he mean at the BBC?

Glad you said that. I was taken aback by the certainty from both Gove and Webb ("now widely accepted") and wondered if I'd missed a whole tranche of evolving commentary. Towards the end Webb said something dismissive like "of course there'll always be some scientists taking a different view".

I may of course have missed alternative takes in the eatlier slots. Or is this an example of BBC bias?

>> is "where [the UK] is the first safe country they encounter". Now that it's virtually impossible for refugees to arrive by air, that would mean only people fleeing persecution by ... the Irish, French, Belgians and Dutch would be acceptable refugees here 🤔

I can only add my sympathy. What strikes me about the plan is that it does nothing to support the main things it claims to do - on the one hand, returning those without a right to stay, and on the other, providing safety to those who have one. Also a giveaway is >>

There's also the strange redundancy of their slogan "the best classical music" (where would I go for the less good stuff, which is in danger of enticing me?) and, of course, the "home of classical music" which must make Classic FM, idk, some kind of holiday let?

I've an odd suspicion they do it just because they enjoy the feeling of saying two things together that somehow ought to exist in separate universes: "smart speaker" and "Radio 3"

The downside in terms of integration won't have been overlooked, it will have been factored in. Which rather gives the lie to the whole pitch.

I guess the ostensible justification would be "it will deter others" and a part of the aim will be to show "we are not a soft touch" (rather than counter that we are not) but I also suspect a (subconscious?) element of "we can't get to grips with this, we're going to punish the people bothering us"

Really don't know why Government officials should be "carefully considering the implications" of their own legislative plans. There's no excuse for failing to think all this through before you publish. And they have policy officials who are perfectly capable of working out these details.