[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Audax]

Is there actually anyone who is arguing the number of boats arriving aren’t a problem? The more the merrier argument? Curious about that. Seems to be everyone across the political problem agrees there is a problem here.

The numbers of boats are a symptom of a problem. They are not, however, the root cause of the problem. To solve the problem, we must identify and solve the root cause(s) that result in the visible symptom. I see nothing in what the Tories have proposed this week, or indeed in the last 3-4 years, that even tries to get to the root cause(s).

There are, unfortunately, multiple root causes that can generally be classified under two headings: "1. those we have direct power to solve" and "2. those we do not have direct power to solve". Generally speaking, the root causes of displacement fall under the second category (such as Russia being dicks in Ukraine, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc). But the root cause of displaced people resorting to people smuggling gangs and getting on boats to come to the UK ... some of that falls under the first category. Such as creating safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK that do not require them to already be in the UK (as with Ukraine). Such as ensuring that claims are processed quickly, efficiently, and fairly according to both domestic and international law.

 

[Rdodge30]

Personally I think it’s a stretch to say the number of human traffickers’ boats full of illegal immigrants arriving in this country is partly the fault of our Government.

They are leaving their native countries in their tens even hundreds of thousands, that is the source of the problem.

If this Government is part of the cause then the Next Labour Government reversing the rule that is in place will mean less boats arriving?

I think that’s unlikely

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Apart from what we already know, what is it about France / the French that asylum seekers find so unacceptable and unpalatable they they won't claim asylum there?

It's a genuine question. I really don't understand what the attraction of the UK is compared to France.

I have pondered this, too.

The argument used to be that foringers see the UK as a soft touch under it's wet labour government. But that was when asylum seeking in small boats, the wheel hubs of aeroplanes, etc., was less than 1% of what it is now. And of course it has been quite a while since we had a labour government.

One argument put forward is that if you are fleeing from parts of Africa or the Indian subcontiment, the UK may already be home for some of your kinsmen, former empire and all that. Shared language, perhaps. However most asylum seekers are not from such places any more.

If we focus on what we are told is the main problem now, Albanians and those they are trafficking, I suspect it is a product of mythmaking and criminal opportunism. I mentioned more than a year ago that on most days there are more than 100 Albanians doing three tins and a ball tricks for money on Westminster Bridge. There are spotters on their phones at each end of the bridge so that the gangs can melt into the crowd if the OB turn up. I have only once see any police action - two people arrested. I don't know why Albanians are selecting to come to London rather than Paris. . . .

If they think we are simply a soft touch, all I can say is . . . . how come the tories have created this shambles? We didn't have any of this when we had a labour government. Nor indeed did we have all this going on when we were still in the European Union. It is almost as if the successive tory governments, "call me" Dave, Maybot, The Liar, Thick Lizzy and now Sunak are all egregiously incompetent. Who knew?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

opposition should be ready to form a government and have at least a notion of policy in all areas. otherwise we end up with opposing for the sake of it. on this specific policy, following the view the government are trying to stitch up oppostion to make them look like they dont have an answer, best way to shoot that fox is to have one. eitherway i'd certainly expect a grown up conversation before the election.

An opposition does not have to explain all its plans. That doesn't mean it doesn't have plans. This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Telling lies about the labour party and it's policies is one of the last strategies this shower of charlatans posing as a government has left to offer.

Starmer is right to say little.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I genuinely hope that is not wishful thinking, but listening to Yvette Cooper doing the rounds today it looks like the Labour Party will be dusting off the 2015 Controls on Immigration mugs for the next election campaign. Just focusing on the workability of the scheme without addressing the moral vacuum that lies behind it is weak, and they should be embarrassed.

I can only hope the huge majority they will be gifted by this wretched government will also deliver a moral compass and a backbone to go with it.

What has Cooper said, exactly?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If they do not offer credible solutions to political problems, after the next election they will still be the opposition

Does that mean you think the Rwanda gambit and the unworkable new law are credible solutions, and that if labour don't publish something different people will carry on voting tory? Well, you may be simply speaking for yourself, here, of curse. If you plan to vote tory unless Labour come up with a 'credible plan', good luck to you.

Presumably you have a clear picture in your mind what would constitute a credible plan, or how would you recognize one when you see it?

Care to tell us what it is?

 

[Hotchilidog]

What has Cooper said, exactly?

That Labour will not replace the borders bill, they will only amend it. Whilst I welcome the desire to speed up the processing of applications, the focus on creating another border force and renewing return agreements with EU countries (which does need to happen) still smacks of pandering to those who demonise asylum seekers and refugees as criminals and a problem. Labour has to my knowledge said nothing about securing new safe and legal routes that will reduce the market for people smugglers to exploit.

Not a word about the immorality of this government's action, just a reassurance to the public that they will be more effective in dealing with this 'problem'. I understand that they're maybe some realpolitik behind this stance, but to me it just stinks.

The UK does far less than any other comparable country for refugees and asylum seekers yet these people are seen as convenient scapegoats for our ills by the leaders of both major parties

 

[Rdodge30]

Does that mean you think the Rwanda gambit and the unworkable new law are credible solutions, and that if labour don't publish something different people will carry on voting tory? Well, you may be simply speaking for yourself, here, of curse. If you plan to vote tory unless Labour come up with a 'credible plan', good luck to you.

Presumably you have a clear picture in your mind what would constitute a credible plan, or how would you recognize one when you see it?

Care to tell us what it is?

Not at all, I wasn’t speaking for myself or giving my views one way or the other on that specific policy or any other.

Simply my view on what the Labour Party need to do in order to take power:

Produce a credible effective fully costed manifesto providing solutions for today’s political problems.

 

[The Fits]

It's like they try and out do each other with their brazenness and utter contempt for the people they serve. Braverman really is disgraceful.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The law on asylum seekers as explained by a KC. It includes the UN 1948 and 1951 legislations.

 

[Pevenseagull]

The law on asylum seekers as explained by a KC. It includes the UN 1948 and 1951 legislations.

Or, as the tories with their 'lefty lawyer' stuff might call him, a 'KFC'.


Reason for editing: punctuation.

 

[rogersix]

Not at all, I wasn’t speaking for myself or giving my views one way or the other on that specific policy or any other.

Simply my view on what the Labour Party need to do in order to take power:

Produce a credible effective fully costed manifesto providing solutions for today’s political problems.

1. call election

2. produce manifesto

i'm afraid you'll have to a while for all the excitement

 

[jcdenton08]

1. call election

2. produce manifesto

i'm afraid you'll have to a while for all the excitement

At the moment Labour have all the power by virtue of staying quiet and not giving failing Tories any ammunition. The hustings and debates after manifesto is released don’t give Conservative strategists time to play the long PR game of slagging off Labour ideas for years before an election.

This is sensible to me.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That Labour will not replace the borders bill, they will only amend it. Whilst I welcome the desire to speed up the processing of applications, the focus on creating another border force and renewing return agreements with EU countries (which does need to happen) still smacks of pandering to those who demonise asylum seekers and refugees as criminals and a problem. Labour has to my knowledge said nothing about securing new safe and legal routes that will reduce the market for people smugglers to exploit.

Not a word about the immorality of this government's action, just a reassurance to the public that they will be more effective in dealing with this 'problem'. I understand that they're maybe some realpolitik behind this stance, but to me it just stinks.

The UK does far less than any other comparable country for refugees and asylum seekers yet these people are seen as convenient scapegoats for our ills by the leaders of both major parties

Oh, I see.

Well, as repeated ad nauseam, labour don't need to declare anything much at the moment. I don't have a problem with Cooper's comment. She has to say something, or hide in a wardrobe like Johnson, or pretend the phone signal is lost, like Corbyn did.

As for leaders of both parties (which includes Starmer) seeing refugees as 'convenient scapegoats'.....I think someone has put some LSD in your tea. Starmer has done no such thing. Neither that, nor on the other hand made him and his party a hostage to fortune by publishing an 'alternative' policy that can be misrepresented by the tory lickspittles in/and the media.

Starmer (and Cooper) can largely sit back and let the tories eat themselves for the time being. Huffing and puffing about 'immorality' will have no impact on anything (other than to make the huffer feel self-righteous).

Every sane person (who isn't a blighted by their tiny white penis) knows all this immigrant stuff is a red herring. Anyone serious going toe to toe with it, in full rebuttal mode, hasn't read the room. The tories are desperately whistling to their dogs. There is no need for either labour or you to get distraught about it. Hold your nose till after the general election. Hold labout to account once they have had a chance to exercise some power.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not at all, I wasn’t speaking for myself or giving my views one way or the other on that specific policy or any other.

Simply my view on what the Labour Party need to do in order to take power:

Produce a credible effective fully costed manifesto providing solutions for today’s political problems.

They will.

I hope they don't publish it till days before the election, though.

The election won't be won by votes from the likes of you or me. It will be won by the whim of a swathe of floating voters, hopefully forgetting that recently they mostly believed that Corbyn-Labour want unrestricted immigration and a seat in the house of lords for Gerry Adams.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Your first point explains why I disagree with your second. They were elected by winning seats in working class areas. They did this by focusing on the EU and immigration as the major problems for those communities. The real reasons they are not thriving are far more to do with the underinvestment and demise of manufacturing industry. They cannot / will not do anything to respond to those challenges because the potential solutions are either too expensive, or too Keynesian to fit their free market ideology. In those circumstances, they can't admit their impotency, so they need a convincing alternative explanation. Putting the blame on 'others' is a long established tactic of right wing populist politicians. Proposing seemingly simple solutions to very complex problems is another.

I see Starmer's position differently. Labour in opposition in the UK is in opposition to the current government, but is also effectively opposed by the majority of owners of media outlets. Starmer's reticence on this and a lot of other issues reflects that his present job is not to promote debate, but to get himself elected. To do this, he believes that he is better advised to focus attention on the faults of the government, than to propose alternatives that he is currently powerless to implement. Doing the latter would just encourage his opponents to focus on attacking his proposals, leaving him on the defence instead of attacking the government. This unspoken truth is why I have more patience with his seeming ineffectiveness than most on the left do. Corbyn openly went to war with the media and though his supporters loved him saying the things that they wanted to hear, he gave the media what it needed to destroy his credibility with a particular segment of working class voters. At present, the best that they can do with Starmer is say that he's boring. Given the endless supply of 'exciting' politicians that his opponents have inflicted upon us, a bit of tedious stability might be welcomed by a lot of us. I don't seem him as a good political campaigner, but as a proven sound admistrator. As you suggest, the real test of him will come if and when he is elected.

Precisely.

Anyone who continues to scream for detailed labour strategy and tactics, immediately and in triplicate are, in my view, not thinking this properly through.

Or are tories.

I imagine that several jackasses I have on ignore have already posted 'come on then Starmer, you slag, you think you're so clever but you don't have any plans and are trying to con the electorate (etc etc)'. If I decided to be a right wing twit it would be such a doddle.

 

[Rdodge30]

They will.

I hope they don't publish it till days before the election, though.

The election won't be won by votes from the likes of you or me. It will be won by the whim of a swathe of floating voters, hopefully forgetting that recently they mostly believed that Corbyn-Labour want unrestricted immigration and a seat in the house of lords for Gerry Adams.

Only days before?

Im sure there will be many others with the same view as you on both sides of politics- voting for their party regardless of what is in the manifesto

 

[worthingseagull123]

Apart from what we already know, what is it about France / the French that asylum seekers find so unacceptable and unpalatable they they won't claim asylum there?

It's a genuine question. I really don't understand what the attraction of the UK is compared to France.

We are a lot more lenient.

Asylum applications - annual statistics - Statistics Explained

The latest statistics on asylum applicants in the EU are presented.

ec.europa.eu

We grant to a higher percentage of people than anywhere else in the EU.

We don’t have ID cards and can’t tackle illegal working as other nations do.

We have a huge backlog and people know it could take years to assess their claims. The longer they remain, the greater the chance of an amnesty.

 

[drew]

This bill will fail just as all the other bill/ideas that this government have proposed. The big problem is that they don't process applications quick enough. People bang on about illegal asylum seekers however, they are not illegal until their application has been rejected which means it must be processed. It's all cloak and mirrors to try an appeal to the voters more xenophobic tendancies and distract from the disaster that this government is on almost every front.

 

[BadFish]

We are a lot more lenient.

Asylum applications - annual statistics - Statistics Explained

The latest statistics on asylum applicants in the EU are presented.

ec.europa.eu

We grant to a higher percentage of people than anywhere else in the EU.

We don’t have ID cards and can’t tackle illegal working as other nations do.

We have a huge backlog and people know it could take years to assess their claims. The longer they remain, the greater the chance of an amnesty.

The best thing about having the press on one's side is that you can continually chip away at asylum seeker laws and introduce some of the most draconian systems in the world, cut off any and all legal routes to seeking asylum in your country, out source your responsibilities to a third country and slow down the processing of applications to snails pace all the while convincing your electorate that you are more lenient than other countries and a 'soft touch's.

Keep drinking the Kool aid people.