[Politics] The Labour Government

[rogersix]

He and Cooper have had a long time to get their heads around the problem, with Starmer thick with detail, Id like to think they would have been out of the traps pretty quickly.

How long do you think we should give him?

15 years

 

[Is it PotG?]

15 years

3 terms, after this start?

Good luck with that one

 

[rogersix]

3 terms, after this start?

Good luck with that one

the, tory-omnibunglecuntshamblestrussterfuck, managed it. Starmer's still quite young

 

[Weststander]

I wouldn’t mind seeing at least 2 terms. Not for a party political point, but because long term planning is a good thing.

But with just 33.7% of the GE vote, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[rogersix]

I wouldn’t mind seeing at least 2 terms. Not for a party political point, but because long term planning is a good thing.

But with just 33.7% of the GE vote, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

there will be a lot of deceased right wangers in ten years time

 

[dsr-burnley]

there will be a lot of deceased right wangers in ten years time

That old chestnut. These old right wingers whose deaths you cheerfully predict were brought up in the sixties. Flower people, drugs and free love, student riots, and so forth. They're conservative now, but they weren't then; it's a typical progression for people to move from left to right as they age; if only because taking wealth from the rich to give to the poor, is always more popular among the poor than it is among the rich.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Australia does not fly migrants to Africa.

"For over a decade, Australia has employed tough border protection policies. Since 2013, the Australian navy has been ordered to tow or turn away migrant boats trying to reach Australia. The policy is called Operation Sovereign Borders and has the support of both major parties in Canberra."

The nearest neighbour is Papua New Guinea. Somewhat easier to bully, and with whom to disregard any possible trade consequences than, er, France and the rest of the EU.

And the boats coming to Australia were Bigguns. It is 150 miles from the nearest neighbour, not 20. No little dinghies. And no Albanian middle men.

In fact everything about the Australia situation is completely different from ours.

I suppose we could just drag the dinghies into the middle of the channel, but we haven't yet embraced state murder.

You narrative is adrift in windless waters

I would have to disagree the bolded part. I don't agree that the British plan to collect migrants arriving by boat and sending them to a foreign country for processing has no similarities at all with the Australian plan to collect migrants arriving by boat and sending them to a foreign country. I accept that the nationality of the criminal gangs and the specific capacities of the boats is different, and that Australia and the UK are on different continents as are the destinations, but that's not enough IMO to say that the two situations are entirely different in principle.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Weird twist - £300m on a deterrent that was doomed to failure - in part because the asylum seekers that would be sent there are not a hypothetical group but are already in the UK awaiting their claims to be processed.

They maybe crossing the Channel in from France but they are not French refugees, they are asylum seekers from Albania, Afghanistan, Syria, the Sudan, Eritrea and Iran largely.

The truth of why Asylum seekers don’t settle in France is because of:

• the rise of the far right in France
• they are treated very poorly at the hands of the French police ( which forces them into the hands of the smugglers)
• only 25% of applications are successful ( cf 70% in UK)
• they already have family members in the UK

Asylum Seekers Crossing the English Channel: Why Don’t They Stay in France? - By Marie Léveillé - United Against Inhumanity

“It is often claimed that asylum-seekers coming to the UK in small boats should have applied for asylum in France. In this article, Marie Leveille explains that most asylum-seekers reaching France stay in France, why those who cross the Channel do so, and shows that they have every right to make...

www.against-inhumanity.org

The ‘truth’ (not theory) of Rwanda Plan was it was an overly expensive for the numbers it could accommodate and an inhumane response to asylum seekers - many of whom have fled ethnic conflicts and are psychologically traumatised.

Sending victims of war-torn Countries and or ethnic cleansing to a Country with genocide in its recent history, that has internal tribal conflicts, whose government commits war crimes and human rights abuses against anyone that speaks out against them was ill-conceived.

The Rwanda Plan was contrary to international human rights law and our own human rights legislation.

The reality is the Rwanda Plan was only ‘legitimised’ because the Tory government artificially constructed a work-around by re-designating Rwanda as a ‘safe’ Country.

Plenty of good ponts, there, but I would take issue with the parts I have bolded.

One, if refugees in the country now were to be sent to Rwanda, and the current crop of refugees now in France who would rather be in England believed they would be sent there too, it would certainly act as a deterrent (unless they like Rwanda).

Two, I think there is a hint of anti-African bias among commentators here. Germany was hosting Olympic Games and World Cups with in 30 years of their extended period of genocide. Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia seem to be back in civilised society too. Thirty years is not too long for a country to be re-civilised. African countries as a whole have a pretty poor human rights record, but let's not condemn them out of hand.

(Incidentally, I don't see why Albanians shouldn't be sent back on the next flight. Or sent to Rwanda and left to walk it home! They're not fleeing ethnic cleansing and civil war. They're just cluttering up the asylum process for genuine refugees.)

 

[Zeberdi]

Plenty of good ponts, there, but I would take issue with the parts I have bolded.

One, if refugees in the country now were to be sent to Rwanda, and the current crop of refugees now in France who would rather be in England believed they would be sent there too, it would certainly act as a deterrent (unless they like Rwanda).

Two, I think there is a hint of anti-African bias among commentators here. Germany was hosting Olympic Games and World Cups with in 30 years of their extended period of genocide. Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia seem to be back in civilised society too. Thirty years is not too long for a country to be re-civilised. African countries as a whole have a pretty poor human rights record, but let's not condemn them out of hand.

(Incidentally, I don't see why Albanians shouldn't be sent back on the next flight. Or sent to Rwanda and left to walk it home! They're not fleeing ethnic cleansing and civil war. They're just cluttering up the asylum process for genuine refugees.)

Addressing your points in bold (and ignoring the fact unbolded points raise some gnarly issues about non-refoulement)

One Rwanda would have failed as a deterrent because:

• For a deterrent to work, ‘certainty’ must be high - the Tories were making plans to transfer about 300 migrants - that was 1% of the 29,437 that arrived by boat in 2023
• It leaves the main incentives for migration unchanged
• The Home Office itself admitted that ‘there is ‘little or no evidence” that restrictive policies’ deter people from migrating - in fact the Balkans route used by Syrian refugees who have been pushed back by Serbia, proves they will just find another, often more dangerous way, to get to their destination.
• The Plan assumes that would be boat migrants are aware of sanctions for irregular migration (detention, deportation, fines) when in fact the majority are uninformed
• Removing large numbers of irregular migrants to Rwanda was costly and ‘logistically difficult’ - If irregular migrants are denied the opportunity to seek asylum in the UK, ‘many would end up in a state of limbo, neither protected in the UK nor removed to another country - only more likely to disappear within the system.’

Two (sorry lazy copy and paste)

“The country has a poor human rights record in general. Rwanda’s asylum system has a history of poor decision-making, wrongly rejecting refugees from some of the world’s most dangerous war zones. And if you want to know how an asylum deal like the one the UK signed might pan out, there’s the example of the deal Rwanda signed with Israel in 2013. Hundreds, if not thousands, of asylum seekers, deported from Israel to Rwanda, were quietly expelled to a neighbouring country without being allowed to claim asylum.”

The Rwanda plan was a stupid, excessively costly and incompetent sop designed by the Tories to win votes in the run up to the election - it was probably a key factor in them losing it.



Ref
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Is-the-Rwanda-plan-acting-as-a-deterrent-Here's-what-the-evidence-says-about-this-approach

In the defeat of the Rwanda plan, the entire Tory project lies in tatters | Daniel Trilling

Not just morally objectionable but stupid, the scheme is representative of years of Conservative rule, says author Daniel Trilling

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bold Seagull]

Plenty of good ponts, there, but I would take issue with the parts I have bolded.

One, if refugees in the country now were to be sent to Rwanda, and the current crop of refugees now in France who would rather be in England believed they would be sent there too, it would certainly act as a deterrent (unless they like Rwanda).

If crossing the channel in an overcrowded dingy and a statistical chance of death by drowning hasn’t acted as a deterrent, then I’m not sure a government policy with less statistical chance of being enacted on you is going to be one.

 

[carlzeiss]

I'd spend 12 minutes researching her work in Kenya.

Who hasn't told a porky once in their lifetime

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Plenty of good ponts, there, but I would take issue with the parts I have bolded.

One, if refugees in the country now were to be sent to Rwanda, and the current crop of refugees now in France who would rather be in England believed they would be sent there too, it would certainly act as a deterrent (unless they like Rwanda).

Two, I think there is a hint of anti-African bias among commentators here. Germany was hosting Olympic Games and World Cups with in 30 years of their extended period of genocide. Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia seem to be back in civilised society too. Thirty years is not too long for a country to be re-civilised. African countries as a whole have a pretty poor human rights record, but let's not condemn them out of hand.

(Incidentally, I don't see why Albanians shouldn't be sent back on the next flight. Or sent to Rwanda and left to walk it home! They're not fleeing ethnic cleansing and civil war. They're just cluttering up the asylum process for genuine refugees.)

Surely you remember the last government allowed 4 refugees into this country from Rwanda?

Revealed: UK granted asylum to Rwandan refugees while arguing country was safe

Home Office said refugees’ fear of persecution was ‘well-founded’, undermining Rishi Sunak’s claims about East African country

www.theguardian.com

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That old chestnut. These old right wingers whose deaths you cheerfully predict were brought up in the sixties. Flower people, drugs and free love, student riots, and so forth. They're conservative now, but they weren't then; it's a typical progression for people to move from left to right as they age; if only because taking wealth from the rich to give to the poor, is always more popular among the poor than it is among the rich.

Ah, this old chestnut. It's a different age, different thinking, different people....you cant just view them all through the lens of your generation. I do not know how they will turn out any more than you.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Ah, this old chestnut. It's a different age, different thinking, different people....you cant just view them all through the lens of your generation. I do not know how they will turn out any more than you.

Its also a wide generalisation. I was part of that era and plenty of my age group haven't changed political views at all. A lot have become disenchanted and have largely become apolitical. They have seen both sides have plenty of goes at it, with pretty similar results, constrained by the system and status quo.
It was an emboldened post war generation who listened to parents talk about the war and rationing and pulling together. Its when the balance started to shift in the teaching community from right to left. Me and my mates were vehemently left wing. The Tories were regarded as the establishment, who looked after themselves. We burnt their election posters.
You cannot predict what any generation will do. Only what governments will do. They will never realise expectations. They will always make a mess of it and let you down. They will always gift a GE win to the opposition. They will target headline changes but continue to fail to represent the best interests of the electorate.
The one thing you learn as you get older is......don't expect too much from politicians and you won't get disappointed.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Its also a wide generalisation. I was part of that era and plenty of my age group haven't changed political views at all. A lot have become disenchanted and have largely become apolitical. They have seen both sides have plenty of goes at it, with pretty similar results, constrained by the system and status quo.
It was an emboldened post war generation who listened to parents talk about the war and rationing and pulling together. Its when the balance started to shift in the teaching community from right to left. Me and my mates were vehemently left wing. The Tories were regarded as the establishment, who looked after themselves. We burnt their election posters.
You cannot predict what any generation will do. Only what governments will do. They will never realise expectations. They will always make a mess of it and let you down. They will always gift a GE win to the opposition. They will target headline changes but continue to fail to represent the best interests of the electorate.
The one thing you learn as you get older is......don't expect too much from politicians and you won't get disappointed.

Quite. I actually went from voting for Maggie in my first election to becoming the Labour voting socialist I am now. I have also done okay work-wise to I am not voting for Labour because I'm poor as @dsr-burnley seems to suggest.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Quite. I actually went from voting for Maggie in my first election to becoming the Labour voting socialist I am now. I have also done okay work-wise to I am not voting for Labour because I'm poor as @dsr-burnley seems to suggest.

I didn't suggest that ALL the poor vote Labour and ALL the rich vote Tory. Tony Benn being another example of the seriously rich who is also, in public life at least, a socialist. What I suggested was that the average poor person is more likely to be in favour of redistribution of wealth, than the average rich person. Obviously there are reasons other than financial for voting Tory or Labour or any shade in between.

Over my lifetime at least, people have tended to become more Tory as they get older. It's a tendency not a certainty.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I didn't suggest that ALL the poor vote Labour and ALL the rich vote Tory. Tony Benn being another example of the seriously rich who is also, in public life at least, a socialist. What I suggested was that the average poor person is more likely to be in favour of redistribution of wealth, than the average rich person. Obviously there are reasons other than financial for voting Tory or Labour or any shade in between.

Over my lifetime at least, people have tended to become more Tory as they get older. It's a tendency not a certainty.

I know you did not, it would be utterly stupid of me to think you did.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would have to disagree the bolded part. I don't agree that the British plan to collect migrants arriving by boat and sending them to a foreign country for processing has no similarities at all with the Australian plan to collect migrants arriving by boat and sending them to a foreign country. I accept that the nationality of the criminal gangs and the specific capacities of the boats is different, and that Australia and the UK are on different continents as are the destinations, but that's not enough IMO to say that the two situations are entirely different in principle.

I listed numerous reasons why what Australia did is possible and why if we attempted it, it would never work unless we deliberately allow asylum seekers to drown. Force them to drown in fact. You don't appear to disagree with any of that.

You make a false statement. Australia is not 'collecting and sending' asylum seekers to a safe third party nation. It is blocking the boats, in the sea, forcing them to sail elsewhere. Big boats in a channel 150 miles wide.

And so you conclude that the Australia plan will work provided (but you seem unprepared to admit this) we are prepared to let asylum seekers drown. The Farage policy.

Crikey

 

[CheeseRolls]

Wrong and short sighted.

Trust people to make good decisions and hold them accountable if they make bad decisions.

All this does is give people with zero knowledge the opportunity to make decisions whilst adding delay and risk.

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

this is the breakdown of Reform voters (source analysis)

Sex
Female 42%
Male 58%
Age
18-24s 0%
25-44 yrs old 23%
45-64 yrs olds 38%
65 years+ 39%
Social Class
AB 36%
C1 22%
C2 23%
DE 19%

spread acrosss the social-economic groups, not particularly working class then.

Starmer thinks himself as working class, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/keir-starmer-working-class-liverpool
What social class should we put him in?