I’d say it’s about saying things how they are, avoiding sugar-coating matters, and not denying reality because it’s inconvenient or because it doesn’t fit your ideology, world view or political agenda.
The rage, frustration and contempt of its terms are a foretaste of what’s to come if the Conservatives lose the next election.
A crackdown on people evading a properly-funded shelter system might be fair – but only if that system exists. So if the Government is going to deliver it, why not focus on that significant, positive achievement?
That is the mission of ARC, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, which is holding its inaugural meeting in London. The public want a better, more productive and dignified economy, and a politics and a public culture which honours their values.
A British government which recognised the benefits of a stable, prosperous Africa and offered incentives to skilled professionals to return home would find itself lauded on the continent.
My hunch is the next generation of aspiring leaders will have a firmer grip on the meaning of conservatism than the current crop. Or, at least, I hope so — otherwise there might not be a party to lead.
Lewis Goodall is wrong. Here in Britain, it isn’t the right that runs the risk of leading us down to polarisation. It is the left.
On the one hand, France would increase measures to prevent migrant crossings, and anyone crossing from France would be returned. In the other, the UK would commit to resettling one registered asylum seeker from France (or the broader EU).
The elephant in the room is that, unless something significant changes, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will be able to see through any these plans.
With breathtaking audacity she quoted Shelley, long a poet the Labour Party assumed was on their side.
Well-founded concerns about the suitability of post-war international agreements to modern global conditions are not strengthened by being lumped together with attacks on multiculturalism.
The goalposts cannot be moved. We have a moral, legal, and economic duty to cut our emissions by 68 per cent of 1990 levels by 2030 and reach Net Zero by 2050.
“As case law has developed, what we have seen in practice, is a interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’.”
Whether you see the glass as still half-empty, rather than half-full, the question we all face is the same one. If we are starting from here, now, can we imagine again a sense of the future that we do want to share?