Government needs to argue for immigration not because it will make liberals happy, but because in 2029, there will still be 200k people a year coming to the UK, and the position can’t be “the experiment is now only a little bit squalid”.

He's essentially saying 'I didn't agree with the 1993-2016 economic model, and I didn't agree with Boris Johnson's either'. Okay, but you didn't agree with Corbynism either. What is yours, to hope that it turns out that 'the easiest route in every poll' turns out to drive growth?

I'm going to defend McSweeney here in that your Downing Street setup absolutely does need someone who goes 'we are not gonna get thanked for doing this', just as it does need a Chancellor who goes 'well, that's a BIG number'. It just also needs another thing, I think it rhymes with 'prime minister'?

this is, i suppose a scoldy piece by nature...but that's not really my point. i'm interested in how the online dynamic leads people to accept circumstances they'd never, ever tolerate in the physical world

Yes, makes sense. Would most analysts accept it may not be close but is inevitable at some point then? I guess if it never happens (or at least not e.g. by 2050) that's the climate/air pollution risk, but have no idea how large that risk might be

It's not my area, so wondered if you think this from the BBC today is wrong? Seems to think long haul electric planes aren't close? www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...