All I want to see is for them to rawdog it in the ring be healthy and live long and happy lives.

As I cover in my final paragraph.

Incase you didn’t know, Rwanda was for settled claims, not processing.

As in, they would be sent to Rwanda if they were successful in their asylum claim.

Processing asylum seekers in a country they are already in, like Albania, is significantly safer than forcing them to get in a dingy.

Now if we are taking people out of dingys in the channel, and taking them to Albania, then yes fuck that absolutely.

So that’s what Jeremy was speaking about!

Love me some Tim!

A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.

Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).

Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:

The response from the Treasury’s information rights unit said details would be published respecting agreed timelines “to allow the relevant officials time to complete the preparation of the information to ensure it is accurate and correct prior to publication”.

[…]

A spokesperson added the Treasury intends to provide more details of the overspending, either at the Budget or in separate spending releases.

Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.

Respectfully, I didn’t ignore the rest of what you said.

I agree that representatives need to explain to the electorate why they are best placed to elect them for what comes ahead.

But the key point is that we don’t actually know what comes ahead. They have a manifesto, etc, but there will always be unforeseen circumstances which arise.

In those moments in a representative democracy the representatives make the decisions. Your vote for them has allowed you to have your person at the table, but they don’t need to consult with the electorate again.

If they do, you’re moving towards direct democracy.

There are good arguments why governments should look to keep the electorate informed, explain actions, and justify decisions, but the popularity of a measure shouldn’t be the sole factor.

Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.

This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.

A delegate must do what they are instructed - think of them as your hands - whereas a representative is someone who makes decisions on your behalf - a second brain.

Delegates are extremely susceptible to tyranny of the majority, whereas representatives - in theory - seek to balance actions across all the people they represent, as well as their expertise and knowledge.

Populism is that thing your mum was on about where if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?

It might absolutely be the right decision, depending on the context, but if it isn’t then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing just because it’s popular.

Clearly from too much pencil throwing.