Latest news with #Channel
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- General
- Telegraph
Sir Keir launches a new fleet of subs, but we can't even fend off a single dinghy
Happy Strategic Defence Review Day, when Santa pops down the chimney and hands out guns to childish MPs. Once more: 'everything has changed'. Yet again: 'the world is more dangerous than ever'. This time the Government is going to make us safer by attaching nuclear bombs to planes. Clearly someone has never seen Thunderball. The PM launched Operation Sound Butcher Than Reform at a shipyard in Govan, underscoring the preposterous but influential belief that Russia intends to invade Britain. If it does, it better not start with hard-as-nails Govan. They don't just throw Molotov cocktails, they drink 'em. As always with the PM's speeches, the crowd looked as if they were gathered around a grave, the life gradually sucked out of them as Starmer droned on about drones. Sailors, he said, told him 'nothing works unless we all work together. In this moment of danger for our country, that's the spirit we need!' The good news is we're halfway there – 'nothing works' – though why he proposes to launch a billion submarines into the Atlantic when we can't fend off one dinghy in the Channel, je ne sais pas. The Tories hit upon the real problem with the review: they hadn't read it. Later in the Commons, shadow boom-boom secretary James Cartlidge vented that while he'd not been given a copy, the media and industry enjoyed advanced sight that morning, defying parliamentary custom and raising serious questions about security. Cartlidge needs to put his own house in order. By leaning over the press gallery, any spy disguised as a correspondent for the Racing Post could easily read the notes he had balanced on his knee. The word SECURITY! was scribbled in pen. The Telegraph knows more than we do, lamented MPs. Simon Hoare suggested the House be suspended. We were one glass of sherry from a buffer demanding a general election. If you want to see the review so much, said Defence Secretary John Healey, I'll leave some copies outside. 'Attenshun!' Mark Francois marched out like Windsor Davies, returned with a review and it wound up in the lap of Jesse Norman: what do you expect me to do with it, ducky? Jesse got as far as the foreword before obviously finding it as dull as ditchwater, flipped open his phone and read his WhatsApps instead. The Telegraph provides you with in-depth analysis; all Jesse could say is that the review is competently stapled. Healey talked nonsense - '...best of defence technology with the heavy metal of our platforms...' and the Tories pointed out that without a budget, his pledges remain 'fantasy'. Tan Dhesi, the dim chairman of the defence committee, asked if this strategic defence review will be 'fully matched with a completely, corresponding, ambitious strategic defence review', apparently unaware that we were discussing said review right now. The most interesting contributions came from what remains of the Commons Left, who wished to know why the Government is switching from strategic to tactical nuclear weapons, ie defensive to offensive, and how this will increase independence if the tech is reliant upon America. Labour's voting fodder laughed; one could smell the uranium on their breath. It's good for jobs, they said. But if there is a nuclear war, I doubt unemployment will be our chief problem.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Stopping the boats is only half the battle. We must also restore British values
At church yesterday, we were asked to pray for refugees. I admit that, for the first time, I hesitated. Over the weekend, we have watched helplessly as hundreds of illegal migrants crossed the Channel with impunity. Even John Healey, the Defence Secretary, found these scenes 'pretty shocking'. The monthly Universal Credit bill for households with at least one immigrant is now almost £1 billion. Our streets are disfigured by imported crime and conflict. It isn't easy to be a Good Samaritan when you feel that your country is no longer your beloved home, but a fairly insalubrious hotel. Indeed, the anger engendered by what I call border anxiety puts at risk everything that fills us with patriotic pride – our ancient laws and liberties, our tolerance and sense of fair play and, yes, our kindness to strangers. Successive governments have been elected to control migration, but have proceeded to do the opposite. Simultaneously, we have dismantled or denigrated our own culture, our values and our traditions. The result is that we cannot integrate those who are already here, because we are losing the sense of what it means to be British. Unless we believe in ourselves, all we have is anarchy in public and parallel societies in private. The rage provoked by feelings of betrayal over uncontrolled migration is shattering the British political system, which the rest of the world used to envy and imitate. Yet it is fatal to our civility to give in to that rage: 'Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.' Instead of the fabled stability of our two-party parliamentary democracy, we seem now to be succumbing to a Continental-style chaos of four, five or more factions. A forest fire of fury has annihilated the old parties in France, Italy and other European nations. Why should Britain be immune? Fissiparous parties held together only by hostility are, ironically, prey to foreign powers. In Poland, the presidential election was overshadowed by the fact that the nationalist Law and Justice candidate, Karol Nawrocki, went to the Oval Office mid-campaign to pay homage to Donald Trump. Her master's voice, the US Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, flew to Warsaw to insist that 'Karol… needs to be the next president of Poland', while denouncing his liberal rival, Rafal Trzaskowski, as 'a train wreck of a leader'. Trump's emissaries had already intervened in the German election earlier this year: both Elon Musk and J D Vance endorsed Alice Weidel, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. When the German authorities accused the nationalist AfD of extremism, Washington protested again in the name of 'free speech'. Meanwhile, the AfD has made no secret of its pro-Putin sympathies – and the feeling is mutual, especially since the new conservative chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has emerged as a staunch ally of Ukraine. We don't want to see British politics dominated by the White House or the Kremlin. Nor do we want every other urgent issue – from defence to the deficit – to be subordinated indefinitely to migration. We need to reach a new consensus on how to deter or deal with illegal migrants as soon as possible. Undesirables who come here to commit crimes or exploit our generosity must be deported. Likewise, legal migration must be curtailed, citizenship earned and rules strictly enforced. Above all, we must rediscover the world we have lost: in which our history is not a tale told by ideological idiots, but the stirring narrative of a nation of pioneers, entrepreneurs and saviours. We worry about immigrants, but forget about the half a million emigrants we lose a year, many of them young families despairing of a society that has lost its own plot. Three of my four grandchildren are growing up in Poland, a land that has endured an incomparably harsher past than our own, but which celebrates its culture and inculcates old-fashioned good manners. No wonder it is predicted that the Poles will overtaken Japan in GDP per capita next year and will one day surpass Germany and the UK too. Given the polarisation of British opinion on immigration ever since the 1960s, achieving a robust consensus may seem a remote prospect. Yet it is actually well within our grasp. As I wrote here recently, Denmark has done exactly that with its Social Democrat-led coalition under the formidable Mette Frederiksen. She has demonstrated beyond doubt that banishing border anxiety, while restoring confidence in cultural identity and the nation state, do not need to be demonised as a 'far-Right' crusade. Ms Frederiksen is indubitably a woman of the centre-Left, but she is first and foremost a Danish patriot. There are many grounds for doubting that Sir Keir Starmer is about to follow Ms Frederiksen's example, but one of the strongest is the electoral calculus. Labour's elites are wedded to the notion that their voters, who include millions of migrants and their descendants, would desert them if they adopted the Danish model. They are not entirely wrong – many Labour MPs do face threats from Lib Dems, Greens and especially Islamists – but this is a test of the Prime Minister's statesmanship. Ms Frederiksen's predecessor, Helle Thorning-Schmidt (the wife of Stephen Kinnock MP), failed that test and lost. She is a historical footnote, while Ms Frederiksen is widely emulated. Equally, Reform UK is guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We must beware of belittling the huge contribution that those from overseas have made to this country. It is no accident that the last two Conservative leaders have had migrant backgrounds. There are many like them who are intensely proud of this country and have no time for those who claim asylum but are really gaming the system. It was Rishi Sunak, not Sir Keir, whose measures, passed before he left office, have halved the net migration numbers. Hence Kemi Badenoch is the politician who most deserves to be trusted to achieve a new settlement on migration. Her formula is the right one: to end the automatic path to British citizenship and introduce a legally binding cap on annual immigration. If any leader can lay the spectre of border anxiety to rest, it's Kemi.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
On illegal migration, Labour are either liars or fools
'The purpose of a system is what it does' is a very useful concept in systems thinking, especially in politics. It helps you see past the spin and lies and get at the revealed preference of what a politician wants. So whilst Keir Starmer may say he wants to 'smash the gangs' which enable large numbers of young men from alien cultures to arrive on British shores, the evidence is to the contrary. Yesterday saw nearly the largest ever number crossing. Close to 1,200 people came across the Channel, a number so high the Coastguard was forced to rely on fishing boats to help a yacht and kayaks in difficulty, as Border Force vessels and lifeboats were overloaded rescuing these migrants. The total number of arrivals this year has broken new records – up more than 30 per cent on the same point last year. This quite demonstrably smashes the illusion that Starmer was ever serious about 'smashing the gangs'. The purpose of a system is what it does. So either Starmer and his team are completely incompetent, and their plan is not working, or they are not disclosing to the British public their true intentions, and are ultimately happy with the status quo. Neither option is acceptable, given the increasing danger to our safety and security. There are now over twice as many boat people who have arrived on our shores since 2018 (at least over 150,000) as there are UK regular forces in the British army (74,400 as of April). Three Iranian men were charged last month with spying offences, after arriving in the UK by 'irregular means' including small boats and a lorry. How many extremists, or those who wish the UK harm, might be sitting in migrant hotels, plotting against innocent Brits? This is even more infuriating if you listen to Dominic Cummings, whose recent blog on the issue highlights how farcical a situation this is. Cummings says that after detailed conversations he had in Number 10 with the Royal Navy and special forces, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats would be trivially easy. The block? Government lawyers and civil servants, prioritising the ECHR and radical interpretations of laws, including Tony Blair's Human Rights Act. There is a chance, Cummings says, that the Prime Minister would even be arrested for ordering the armed forces to actually sort this out. The Civil Service, the international lawyers, and now clearly Keir Starmer, have all prioritised the ECHR and the 'rights' of those coming to Britain illegally, over the safety of our citizens. This isn't a bug. It is a feature of a rancid system operating as it is intended to. Starmer cannot 'smash the gangs'. In the first three months of this year, just five people were convicted for piloting migrant boats. The only way to stop the boats is to stop demand with an effective deterrent. It's an awkward truth for Labour, but also a simple one. The purpose of a system is what it does. And the purpose of the British state is to allow unlimited numbers of illegals in, and make the British pay for it, both in cash and, potentially, with our lives. James Price is senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
On illegal migration, Labour are either liars or fools
'The purpose of a system is what it does' is a very useful concept in systems thinking, especially in politics. It helps you see past the spin and lies and get at the revealed preference of what a politician wants. So whilst Keir Starmer may say he wants to 'smash the gangs' which enable large numbers of young men from alien cultures to arrive on British shores, the evidence is to the contrary. Yesterday saw nearly the largest ever number crossing. Close to 1,200 people came across the Channel, a number so high the Coastguard was forced to rely on fishing boats to help a yacht and kayaks in difficulty, as Border Force vessels and lifeboats were overloaded rescuing these migrants. The total number of arrivals this year has broken new records – up more than 30 per cent on the same point last year. This quite demonstrably smashes the illusion that Starmer was ever serious about 'smashing the gangs'. The purpose of a system is what it does. So either Starmer and his team are completely incompetent, and their plan is not working, or they are not disclosing to the British public their true intentions, and are ultimately happy with the status quo. Neither option is acceptable, given the increasing danger to our safety and security. There are now over twice as many boat people who have arrived on our shores since 2018 (at least over 150,000) as there are UK regular forces in the British army (74,400 as of April). We already saw how Iran smuggled terrorists over a few weeks ago; how many Isis and other extremists might be sitting in migrant hotels, plotting against innocent Brits? This is even more infuriating if you listen to Dominic Cummings, whose recent blog on the issue highlights how farcical a situation this is. Cummings says that after detailed conversations he had in No10 with the Royal Navy and special forces, smashing the gangs and stopping the boats would be trivially easy. The block? Government lawyers and civil servants, prioritising the ECHR and radical interpretations of laws, including Tony Blair's Human Rights Act. There is a chance, Cummings says, that the Prime Minister would even be arrested for ordering the armed forces to actually sort this out. The Civil Service, the international lawyers, and now clearly Keir Starmer, have all prioritised the ECHR and the 'rights' of those coming to Britain illegally, over the safety of our citizens. This isn't a bug. It is a feature of a rancid system operating as it is intended to. Starmer cannot 'smash the gangs'. In the first three months of this year, just five people were convicted for piloting migrant boats. The only way to stop the boats is to stop demand with an effective deterrent. It's an awkward truth for Labour, but also a simple one. The purpose of a system is what it does. And the purpose of the British state is to allow unlimited numbers of illegals in, and make the British pay for it, both in cash and, potentially, with our lives.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Neurodivergent people overreported to UK anti-extremism programmes, charity says
The treatment of people with autism who are referred to the government's Prevent scheme is to be challenged. A human rights charity has written to Yvette Cooper claiming that Prevent, as well as Channel, the multi-agency follow-on programme, which both seek to identify people at risk of extremism, are overreporting neurodivergent people in breach of equality laws. There are concerns that autistic people are being referred to the authorities due to a lack of healthcare provision. In a pre-action letter to the Home Office, Rights & Security International (RSI) has warned that it remains 'deeply concerned about a potential ongoing failure to collect and analyse data on the protected characteristics of those referred to Prevent and that this constitutes an ongoing failure to comply with their public sector equality duty'. The letter states that a 2021 internal Home Office analysis obtained under the Freedom of Information Act found that more than a quarter of those receiving deradicalisation support from the Channel programme had either been diagnosed or had a suspected diagnosis of autism. The Channel programme is for the most serious cases where there is a 'genuine risk' of radicalisation. Having obtained previously undisclosed Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) carried out in 2023, RSI is concerned that the government is not adequately addressing the risk of 'overreporting' autistic people. Sarah St Vincent, executive director of RSI, said the documents suggest the government is taking a 'casual and even careless approach' to understanding the impact of Prevent on autistic people. 'The government needs to seriously rethink its approach to the Prevent programme, and in the meantime, authorities need to properly monitor the programme's equality impact,' she said. RSI argues that the 2021 report, entitled Autism Spectrum Condition: Support within the Channel Process, raises concerns about the potential discriminatory impact of the programme on autistic people. The report said: 'Survey findings indicate that an estimated 14% of Channel cases had diagnosed Autism Spectrum Condition. In 12% of cases Channel practitioners considered that someone might be autistic although they lacked the clinic diagnosis.' In legal correspondence with RSI, the Home Office has indicated that data about the protected characteristics of referred persons is often not available. It said existing Prevent and Channel data does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of all protected characteristics of individuals referred. RSI has argued that the failure to collect adequate data to support equality monitoring constitutes a breach of the home secretary and police's Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). PSED is the requirement to have 'due regard' to the equality objectives in section 149 of the Equality Act, which include the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion As part of its letter, the human rights organisation has asked for a formal Alternative Dispute Resolution meeting to try to resolve its concerns. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has voiced his concerns that a 'staggeringly high' number of autistic people are referred to Prevent. He has cited terrorism cases in which the defendants were autistic, including 17-year-old Lloyd Gunton, who declared himself an Islamic State soldier and was sentenced to life in prison for preparing a vehicle and knife attack in Cardiff in 2018. Carolin Ott, a senior associate solicitor in Leigh Day's human rights department, which represents RSI, said: 'There is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of the Prevent programme and its potentially disproportionate impact on minority groups. Our client believes that the data it has obtained bolsters its argument that the government needs to change its approach.' The Home Office has been approached for comment.
