[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Randy McNob]

I know that it has been said before, but Johnson versus Corbyn was not showing off British political talent at its best.

time to modernise and bring in PR

 

[Is it PotG?]

Here's our next leader in full flow folks

 

[Seagull27]

Here's our next leader in full flow folks

Thanks for posting, thought he answered those questions quite well.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Thanks for posting, thought he answered those questions quite well.

Still no answer to the boats?

Critical of the present mess, yes.

A feasible and workable solution, nah.

 

[A1X]

A feasible and workable solution, nah.

Why are the Labour proposals neither feasible nor workable in your opinion?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Why are the Labour proposals neither feasible nor workable in your opinion?

What is it?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Here's our next leader in full flow folks

And here is NSC's favourite Farage/Brexit/Johnson/Rwanda defender and supporter losing it folks

 

[Is it PotG?]

And here is NSC's favourite Farage/Brexit/Johnson/Rwanda defender and supporter losing it folks

Ah, talking of brains, here we go.
Can you explain to someone thick like me how Starmer intends to deal with this 'Boats' thing?

Thanks

 

[A1X]

What is it?

Process the outstanding claims, work with the French to tackle the people smugglers, reopen safe routes to take away the need for people to arrive on boats in the first place and setup return arrangements with other countries for failed applicants. If you’d paid attention you’d know this.

Which of those do you regard as not being “feasible and workable”? Or perhaps you’d like to take each one in turn and explain it in detail?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Process the outstanding claims, work with the French to tackle the people smugglers, reopen safe routes to take away the need for people to arrive on boats in the first place and setup return arrangements with other countries for failed applicants. If you’d paid attention you’d know this.

Which of those do you regard as not being “feasible and workable”? Or perhaps you’d like to take each one in turn and explain it in detail?

None of this has been tried?

Processing claims, dealing with the French?

Let's give Sir Starmer a year, then we'll come back to this chat.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Process the outstanding claims, work with the French to tackle the people smugglers, reopen safe routes to take away the need for people to arrive on boats in the first place and setup return arrangements with other countries for failed applicants. If you’d paid attention you’d know this.

Which of those do you regard as not being “feasible and workable”? Or perhaps you’d like to take each one in turn and explain it in detail?

The sensible Labour man being interviewed (rather pissily by the Burnley twat on radio 5) sounded well in control of the situation.

"But people will say that when you can't explain what exactly would you do right now instead of sending everyone to Rwanda that means that you don't have a clue, and it all started with Labour's "open boarders" policy"

was met by

"When we were in charge we controlled immigration. The fact that it is now a crisis with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants as well as asylum seekers is entirely the responsibility of the blunder-****s who have been 'in charge' for the last 13 years. I have told you what we are going to do. Open your ears and shut your flapping gob and your brain may start working".

I paraphrase

Peter Kyle, I think his name is. MP for Hove? You had a diamond down there, you lucky sods. I have the robotic money grubber, Helen Whately, bleating inanities up here in the north (of Kent).

 

[Is it PotG?]

The sensible Labour man being interviewed (rather pissily by the Burnley twat on radio 5) sounded well in control of the situation.

"But people will say that when you can't explain what exactly would you do right now instead of sending everyone to Rwanda that means that you don't have a clue, and it all started with Labour's "open boarders" policy"

was met by

"When we were in charge we controlled immigration. The fact that it is now a crisis with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants as well as asylum seekers is entirely the responsibility of the blunder-****s who have been 'in charge' for the last 13 years. I have told you what we are going to do. Open your ears and shut your flapping gob and your brain may start working".

I paraphrase

Peter Kyle, I think his name is. MP for Hove? You had a diamond down there, you lucky sods. I have the robotic money grubber, Helen Whately, bleating inanities up here in the north (of Kent).

One explanation of the grey response, some might call it vague, full of rhetoric and sound bites and lacking any substance to keep everyone onside.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Ah, talking of brains, here we go.
Can you explain to someone thick like me how Starmer intends to deal with this 'Boats' thing?

Thanks

Well here's a couple of posts, both of which you have acknowledged but both of which you don't seem to able to challenge any element of

1. The obvious solution

1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad
2. Reinstate approved Asylum routes
3. Reinstate working with Interpol and EU police services to target people traffickers
4. Stop cutting the numbers of staff processing Asylum claims

2. The reason your preferred 'Rwanda' solution won't work

The BRITISH Supreme court do not trust Rwanda after a number of refugees they were 'processing' were killed in Rwanda whilst others were sent back to the countries they were trying to escape from.

No laws that this current cabal can change will effect that view of Rwanda by the BRITISH supreme court that they don't trust Rwanda. All of the rest is bullshit, aimed at the seriously naive and It is absolutely dead in the water.

The £240M that we have already paid Rwanda is sufficient to process 400,000 asylum cases from within the UK using UK staff. The total current backlog, that has been building for over 10 years is 175,000. We could have processed the complete backlog, with those who were accepted working and contributing to UK tax, and those who didn't sent back.

I'd hate to have to keep repeating these and run the risk of people thinking you are struggling to understand or worse (your words, not mine)

 

[Is it PotG?]

Well here's a couple of posts, both of which you have acknowledged but both of which you don't seem to able to challenge any element of

1. The obvious solution

2. The reason your preferred 'Rwanda' solution won't work



I'd hate to have to keep repeating these and run the risk of people thinking you are struggling to understand or worse

Job done then, thanks for that.

 

[A1X]

None of this has been tried?

Processing claims, dealing with the French?

Let's give Sir Starmer a year, then we'll come back to this chat.

I imagine we’ll be hearing about fewer defeats in court, for a start.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I imagine we’ll be hearing about fewer defeats in court, for a start.

I'm expecting a little more positive progress from our new leader tbh.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well here's a couple of posts, both of which you have acknowledged but both of which you don't seem to able to challenge any element of

1. The obvious solution


2. The reason your preferred 'Rwanda' solution won't work



I'd hate to have to keep repeating these and run the risk of people thinking you are struggling to understand or worse

He isn't interested in debate; he just likes to toss out a bit of toss then give you an 'ironic' thumbs up when you 'what a wanka!' him.

If you put him on ignore then I won't have to read all your replies to him. You're pretty much last man standing in that particular lonely and barren field of lost hopes and dreams.

 

[Is it PotG?]

He isn't interested in debate; he just likes to toss out a bit of toss then give you an 'ironic' thumbs up when you 'what a wanka!' him.

If you put him on ignore then I won't have to read all your replies to him. You're pretty much last man standing in that particular lonely and barren field of lost hopes and dreams.

I luv you 'H', I hope you know that.

 

[WATFORD zero]

He isn't interested in debate; he just likes to toss out a bit of toss then give you an 'ironic' thumbs up when you 'what a wanka!' him.

If you put him on ignore then I won't have to read all your replies to him. You're pretty much last man standing in that particular lonely and barren field of lost hopes and dreams.

Obviously everything you say is true, but in my defence, what bloke of average intelligence doesn't enjoy 'debating' with someone who makes them look like a complete f***ing genius

And there's always the outside chance as with PPF, Baker Lite, JCFG, Wokeworrier etc etc etc that they are a major investor with JRM, Sunak etc and have picked up a few very tasty contracts in the last few years. Then I'd look extremely foolish wouldn't I

After all, son of a councillor isn't exactly a high bar to get over, is it

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Obviously everything you say is true, but in my defence, what bloke of average intelligence doesn't enjoy 'debating' with someone who makes them look like a complete f***ing genius

And there's always the outside chance as with PPF, Baker Lite, JCFG, Wokeworrier etc etc etc that they are a major investor with JRM, Sunak etc and have picked up a few very tasty contracts in the last few years. Then I'd look extremely foolish wouldn't I

After all, son of a councillor isn't exactly a high bar to get over, is it

I'd let it go....but before I blocked him, I became fixated by his (quite useful) posts on the old photos of Brighton thread where he would post a perfectly identifiable pic of for example the Palace Pier, and lable it 'an old picture of Palace pier?' At least one poster asked him why he kept adding unnecessary question marks? I think he may have some sort of issue? Oh well, never mind?