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

[WATFORD zero]

They close down all legal ways to claim asylum, won't process the cases they do have and then moan about the increases in numbers in boats.

Old, but still valid and the Government have since been actively managing it with an aim of making it worse.



I really can't believe there are still people who fall for this shit

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They close down all legal ways to claim asylum, don't process the cases they do have and then moan about the increases in number in boats.

Are there really still people who fall for this shit

Look over there, whilst we rob you blind.

 

[chickens]

Did anyone actually proof read Sunak’s poster before releasing it, this evening?

No, that’s correct. Britain and America’s take on capitalism is that the majority of workers should only be paid almost enough to live, which keeps workers desperate and unable to save and build contingency funds.

This in turn ensures employers have an army of willing workers who are effectively unable to build any capital to become financially secure, and remain dependent on wage income, however long they work for. That’s what low income employment is.

This turns capitalism as practiced here into something only one step removed from “slavery with a choice of slaveowner” where of course you can leave your job, but only if you have another one to jump to. Low income workers will be servants to capital from leaving education to retirement age, without a realistic prospect of becoming financially secure themselves.

What Rishi’s saying is that migrants arriving illegally will be denied access to this wonderful system. He may not have meant to be quite so searingly honest, but he’s inadvertently told the truth.

 

[The Clamp]

No, that’s correct. Britain and America’s take on capitalism is that the majority of workers should only be paid almost enough to live, which keeps workers desperate and unable to save and build contingency funds.

This in turn ensures employers have an army of willing workers who are effectively unable to build any capital to become financially secure, and remain dependent on wage income, however long they work for. That’s what low income employment is.

This turns capitalism as practiced here into something only one step removed from “slavery with a choice of slaveowner” where of course you can leave your job, but only if you have another one to jump to. Low income workers will be servants to capital from leaving education to retirement age, without a realistic prospect of becoming financially secure themselves.

What Rishi’s saying is that migrants arriving illegally will be denied access to this wonderful system. He may not have meant to be quite so searingly honest, but he’s inadvertently told the truth.

Brilliant post.

 

[A1X]

What people need to realise is this Government has no interest in “solving” the “problem” of these boats. Literally none. They’d rather look like they are with performative cruelty then whinging “they” (lawyers, the UN, woke people, The Guardian, the ECHR, the crazy lizard people living in Suella Braverman’s head) are stopping it.

Thicko racists will lap this up and vote to “Get Boats Done” at the next election accordingly.

 

[nicko31]

What people need to realise is this Government has no interest in “solving” the “problem” of these boats. Literally none. They’d rather look like they are with performative cruelty then whinging “they” (lawyers, the UN, woke people, The Guardian, the ECHR, the crazy lizard people living in Suella Braverman’s head) are stopping it.

Thicko racists will lap this up and vote to “Get Boats Done” at the next election accordingly.

Yesterday was the 42nd statement on small boats since 2019, its all largely performative bollocks and they more or less admit it won't work. Sunak already said he's not joining Russia in leaving the ECHR, how can anyone be defined illegal until an asylum application is denied? Like wonder its called the "illegal" Migration Bill, they got one thing right

I have no doubt its a significant problem but its one manufactured by the Tories. Work Internationally and work with our neighbours on a returns policy, its the only way..

Lots of stupid headlines from client journalists today trying to whip up anger, it really is the stuff of peerages and knighthoods

 

[nicko31]

Look over there, whilst we rob you blind.View attachment 158024

Someone stole the Daily Mail's automatic headline generator

 

[cheshunt seagull]

What people need to realise is this Government has no interest in “solving” the “problem” of these boats. Literally none. They’d rather look like they are with performative cruelty then whinging “they” (lawyers, the UN, woke people, The Guardian, the ECHR, the crazy lizard people living in Suella Braverman’s head) are stopping it.

Thicko racists will lap this up and vote to “Get Boats Done” at the next election accordingly.

This is the same with all 'culture war' issues which basically is what the Tories see this as. Once you 'solve' the problem it loses political impact and will probably create a backlash. In this case there would be real-life stories which would turn refugees into real people which is the last thing the Tories want to see presented to the public. Look at Roe vs Wade in the US and the mobilisation of red votes in the mid-terms.

 

[The Clamp]

Terrorist Muslim migrant sharks on benefits flooding the U.K. with illegal sex dealers

 

[Rdodge30]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

 

[Rdodge30]

Sir Keir Starmer:

Former immigration minister Keir Starmer was upfront about the issues the Labour party had around immigration policy at the Monday evening fringe event.

“If we are honest with ourselves, Labour has been lacking in confidence on immigration for a number of years. We don’t know what to say and we are on the back foot in debates.”

This is worrying, said Starmer, because without knowing what Labour stands for on the issue, it cannot fulfil its role as an opposition party and hold the Government to account.

He said after touring the country on a fact finding mission, he saw that there were two clear camps invested in the issue: pro-immigration businesses and ‘disenchanted’ anti-immigration members of the public.

 

[BBassic]

They're doing what they've done since Brexit. Finding a cause that will get voters out and into the booth.

Brexit.
Stopping Corbyn.
Getting Brexit done.
Immigration.

They do it because it works. Labour could run under the most electable, sensible manifesto in history but unless they find a way to stop people voting Tory because "we dun wont dem forunners over 'ere" then I still think it'll be a close run thing.

I'm not putting a single shred of faith / hope into the polls.

 

[nicko31]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

Trust me the Tories would much rather be talking about small boats than rivers and seas full in shit, an NHS on its knees and failures of self imposed economic sanctions.

The culture war is all they have left and they have their offshore billionaire mates in the media to do their bidding and gaslighting of the population

 

[cheshunt seagull]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

It scores very highly because of the images it presents but the reality is that the issue has absolutely no actual impact on the lives of 99% of the population. Once 'solved' it will slip off the radar and people might start thinking more about the things that actually impact their lives and where the Tories's performance is appalling. If they can put the blame on the fact they couldn't solve the boats issue on lefty/liberal UK and transnational institutions full of urban woke people they can make reform/disempowerment of these as a central element of their manifesto. This gives the likes of Anderson, Gullis etc. plenty of scope to stir up hatred against caricatures of liberals and refugees.

 

[chickens]

A lot of views on here seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding the illegal immigration problem and don’t want to solve it.

If that’s true then it is foolishness with regards to gaining reelection as solving illegal immigration polls very highly across the country

The Labour Party WILL site Tory failure over stopping illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

The Labour Party WILL provide their own solution to illegal immigration in their Election campaign.

Absolutely. Part of that will be reopening legal asylum seeking routes, as it’s far better to have oversight of who’s applying then random boatloads of people arriving on our shores then immediately disappearing.

The other part of this, is international political pressure. If a nation’s government is making life unliveable for a significant proportion of its citizens, then all those states accepting refugees needs to be negotiating hard with it to change its approach, or pick up the cost of its citizens leaving it. Be that withdrawal of aid, or imposition of sanctions. The problem isn’t one that can be solved unilaterally by the nations accepting refugees, it needs solving at source. It needs to be made deeply difficult for nations to act in a hostile manner to subsections of their own citizens.

 

[5Ways Gull]

They're doing what they've done since Brexit. Finding a cause that will get voters out and into the booth.

Brexit.
Stopping Corbyn.
Getting Brexit done.
Immigration.

They do it because it works. Labour could run under the most electable, sensible manifesto in history but unless they find a way to stop people voting Tory because "we dun wont dem forunners over 'ere" then I still think it'll be a close run thing.

I'm not putting a single shred of faith / hope into the polls.

The scary thing is that the fact that this strategy works means that a huge number of people in the country buy into it.

 

[Rdodge30]

It scores very highly because of the images it presents but the reality is that the issue has absolutely no actual impact on the lives of 99% of the population. Once 'solved' it will slip off the radar and people might start thinking more about the things that actually impact their lives and where the Tories's performance is appalling. If they can put the blame on the fact they couldn't solve the boats issue on lefty/liberal UK and transnational institutions full of urban woke people they can make reform/disempowerment of these as a central element of their manifesto. This gives the likes of Anderson, Gullis etc. plenty of scope to stir up hatred against caricatures of liberals and refugees.

I understand you’re point but I disagree. It will never be solved so will never go away. As with all political problems- actually having a positive effect on solving the problem is a better vote winner than deliberately failing in order to keep the problem alive

 

[Stato]

I see that Lineker is in trouble for stating the truth about their dangerous rhetoric. He has to be spoken to for having opinions that disagree with Government ministers because it impacts upon BBC neutrality. He'll presumably be spoken to by former Conservative Council candidate and DG of the BBC Tim Davie, following instruction from Richard Sharp the BBC Chairman and former Boris Johnson advisor who donated £400,000 to the Conservative Party, or perhaps from the board member for England, former Teresa May Communications Director Robbie Gibb*, described by Emily Matlis as an 'active agent of the Conservative Party.'

If the BBC is really as keen on balance as these hypocrites claim, it will need to ask all of the MotD presenters to join the SWP in order to balance the number of tory cronies who are in executive positions in the organisation.

The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...olicy-nazi-germany-match-of-the-day-presenter reports that: "The immigration minister Robert Jenrick told Times Radio:...."Gary Lineker is paid for by the British taxpayer and it is disappointing that he is so far out of step with the British public."

Lineker's views are actually closer to public opinion than are the extremist policies being proposed: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-back-rwanda-plan_uk_63a0991be4b0f4895addddd2
He is also not paid for by the British taxpayer. His salary is paid by licence fee payers. This is not the same thing.
I'll tell you who is being paid for by the British Taxpayer though, you guessed it - Robert Jenrick - who is, apparently free to tweet anything he likes. I'm not saying he shouldn't be, I'm just saying that this point makes his inaccurate cliche about who is being paid for from taxes entirely irrelevent to his weak argument.

*- Who was incidentally appointed by May as Communications Director following his stint in overall charge of BBC political programme output. A similar move from a supposedly politically independent job to a party political one that has recently seen the condemnation of Sue Gray. The two aren't the same you suggest? A senior Civil Servant is not comparable with a BBC employee? Perhaps you're right - perhaps there should be different standards. For example, why would a football presenter be held to the same standards as senior civil servant?

 

[Rdodge30]

It’s more about terms and conditions of employment for me. If Linekar and Packham et al are bound by some neutrality clause on speaking out politically when working for the BBC then they must stick to it. If they’re not then say what you want. Anybody in the public domain who uses Nazi Germany as a comparison to a modern situation is deliberately trying to get as much traction as possible.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Millions, billions.

In reality, thousands