Westminster Politics

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair

Is stopping small boat crossings a controversial policy? The Rwanda policy is dogshit and the fact there are no legal routes for many is terrible but those two tweets don't say anything wrong. Criminal gangs smuggling people across the channel do need to be prevented.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,601
Is stopping small boat crossings a controversial policy? The Rwanda policy is dogshit and the fact there are no legal routes for many is terrible but those two tweets don't say anything wrong. Criminal gangs smuggling people across the channel do need to be prevented.
The way they are going about it is, I would say. The reason the criminal gangs are able to extort these people is the Conservative government closed all means of seeking asylum here from outside of our borders, therefore in order to seek asylum in the UK asylum seekers must risk their lives crossing the channel.

The small boats could be prevented by having a more humane approach to asylum seekers, but that's not what these people really care about; it's not about protecting the lives of people who are risking everything to find a better life for themselves and their families, it's about stopping foreigners coming in.
 

Paul the Wolf

Score Predictions Competition Organiser
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
18,060
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Is stopping small boat crossings a controversial policy? The Rwanda policy is dogshit and the fact there are no legal routes for many is terrible but those two tweets don't say anything wrong. Criminal gangs smuggling people across the channel do need to be prevented.
So is Starmer going to open up legal routes?
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,635
Location
Blitztown
Honestly, it isn't even the MPs that are the issue for me. It's the advisors, who will have significant say in the manifesto. And that'll be the final acid test to what this Labour party actually stands for, because they are heading for a significant majority which means they'll be able to vote through whatever is in their manifesto without much issue, as the Lords will back it due to the Salisbury Principle.

So if they go really defensive in the manifesto and don't commit to anything, then you can bet that the next Labour government will be a continuation of the current shit show - only they'll be more competent! I back Yvette Cooper to see through a much better technical bill on deporting immigrants to Rwanda than any of the last five Tory home secretaries, Labour would really make that policy work. Yay!

Like you I obviously hope to see a progressive manifesto, but literally nothing that Starmer has done since coming into the leadership suggests it will be. And yes, Rachel Reeves is a fecking nightmare - again, she'll actually see through Free Ports becoming a thing instead of the useless incumbents.
Aye. They should really be confident enough to go with a LvG level horny manifesto as they’re guaranteed a win. Just accept a smaller majority in Order to enact meaningful change in the first term.

But… it’s the left. They’ll look at the last election, worry about optics, play a straight bat manifesto and struggle to move us forward in 4-5 years.

‘A decade of national renewal’ needs to be MASSIVELY front loaded. Policy and plans in term 1, delivery of that plan 4-10 years down the track.

Starting with a milquetoast manifesto would be pathetically limp dicked.
 

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair
The way they are going about it is, I would say. The reason the criminal gangs are able to extort these people is the Conservative government closed all means of seeking asylum here from outside of our borders, therefore in order to seek asylum in the UK asylum seekers must risk their lives crossing the channel.

The small boats could be prevented by having a more humane approach to asylum seekers, but that's not what these people really care about; it's not about protecting the lives of people who are risking everything to find a better life for themselves and their families, it's about stopping foreigners coming in.
Yep, the method they are going about stopping the crossings is entirely inhumane. We should have a much more humane approach to asylum seekers than the current government. That being said, there is nothing wrong with a policy of stopping those crossings. You just need a workable alternative and a sensible co-operative agreement with other nations rather than posturing.
 

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair
So is Starmer going to open up legal routes?
I don't know in detail tbh, but I know he has said about a quota based system and greater co-operation with France etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/14/what-are-labours-new-migration-plans


"What is Labour proposing?
While ruling out reversing Brexit, the party’s plans are focused on greater cooperation with the EU, a deal that has proved elusive for Rishi Sunak’s government.

Starmer indicated he could do a deal with Brussels involving the UK taking a quota of asylum seekers who arrive in the bloc in exchange for being able to return people who cross the Channel.

Labour also plans to pay for more asylum caseworkers to help clear the backlog of more than 175,000 asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision on their application."
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
32,061
Location
Ginseng Strip
I just can't see any benefit of welcoming in a toxic Tory such as herself into the party, not when she's not going to be contesting her seat in the next election anyway. Are they hoping it forces Sunak's hand slightly more towards finally calling a GE? Or is Starmer that much of a cnut that he genuinely enjoys having weapons like her on board?
 

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair
I just can't see any benefit of welcoming in a toxic Tory such as herself into the party, not when she's not going to be contesting her seat in the next election anyway. Are they hoping it forces Sunak's hand slightly more towards finally calling a GE? Or is Starmer that much of a cnut that he genuinely enjoys having weapons like her on board?

She's horrible but my guess would be that they have calculated the 'rats deserting a sinking ship' narrative will do more harm to the Conservatives than the 'but she is terrible' narrative will do to Labour. It might work out or it might not. They probably knew she wouldn't leave the Conservatives if it was simply to be an independent. To me her not standing at the next election is a positive rather than negative from a Labour pov.
 

Paul the Wolf

Score Predictions Competition Organiser
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
18,060
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
I don't know in detail tbh, but I know he has said about a quota based system and greater co-operation with France etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/14/what-are-labours-new-migration-plans


"What is Labour proposing?
While ruling out reversing Brexit, the party’s plans are focused on greater cooperation with the EU, a deal that has proved elusive for Rishi Sunak’s government.

Starmer indicated he could do a deal with Brussels involving the UK taking a quota of asylum seekers who arrive in the bloc in exchange for being able to return people who cross the Channel.

Labour also plans to pay for more asylum caseworkers to help clear the backlog of more than 175,000 asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision on their application."
I saw that before. The only way is to open up legal routes which would deal with cases much more quickly. There are far more asylum seekers in France than the UK. These people want to get to the UK. It's not a question of doing a deal with France or quotas or sending them back to France.

It's to stop victimising and demonising them - which Starmer has fallen for hook line and sinker and deal with them properly.

Starmer also thinks he's going to amend the trade deal with the EU, he also thinks he can pick and choose a few other things he might like. He thinks a vet deal will solve problems. He is so clueless it's scary.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
69,067
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
I just can't see any benefit of welcoming in a toxic Tory such as herself into the party, not when she's not going to be contesting her seat in the next election anyway. Are they hoping it forces Sunak's hand slightly more towards finally calling a GE? Or is Starmer that much of a cnut that he genuinely enjoys having weapons like her on board?
Maybe I’m just optimistic but she surely repels more than she attracts?
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,987
Location
Denmark
I thought the electorate wanted rid of the people largely in charge of the past 14 years or whatever it is.
 

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair
I saw that before. The only way is to open up legal routes which would deal with cases much more quickly. There are far more asylum seekers in France than the UK. These people want to get to the UK. It's not a question of doing a deal with France or quotas or sending them back to France.

It's to stop victimising and demonising them - which Starmer has fallen for hook line and sinker and deal with them properly.

Starmer also thinks he's going to amend the trade deal with the EU, he also thinks he can pick and choose a few other things he might like. He thinks a vet deal will solve problems. He is so clueless it's scary.
Has he said much in terms of demonising them?
 

Paul the Wolf

Score Predictions Competition Organiser
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
18,060
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Has he said much in terms of demonising them?
The Tories have, including his new recruit. They have been referred by both Tories and Labour to as illegal immigrants. They are not. Has he once proposed to the Tories open legal routes? Is it a major priority for the UK? No, only to clear the backlog.
 

DanH

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,616
Location
armchair
The Tories have, including his new recruit. They have been referred by both Tories and Labour to as illegal immigrants. They are not. Has he once proposed to the Tories open legal routes? Is it a major priority for the UK? No, only to clear the backlog.
Ok, I think it's a push to hold him responsible for what the Tories have said. I guess we will see if he is as ineffective as you expect soon enough.
 

Paul the Wolf

Score Predictions Competition Organiser
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
18,060
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Ok, I think it's a push to hold him responsible for what the Tory's have said. I guess we will see if he is as ineffective as you expect soon enough.
I've seen what he's done for over seven years because of Brexit with him being the shadow secretary. Not at any one moment since then is there one thing he has done has given me any hope.
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
5,260
Supports
Barcelona
To the Britons of this forum. Do you have the sensation that labour is becoming the Tory Party from 2010 and the Tory is becoming the UKIP? If so (because is what I had been reading lately here), who will fill the vacuum of Labour on the center left?
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,389
Easy answer - cost/benefit calc was that it hurt the Tories more than Labour. Probably correct. But not without risk.

Starmer is firmly in the ‘Death by a thousand cuts’ doctrine. Seeing Rishi shit his pants today at PMQ’s today after the right-wing defector announce minutes before… sends a message to sitting Tories in the house, but upsets you and I.

It’s constant pressure and it’s worked for years now. I think it was a cut misjudged, but Sunak had a full on meltdown today. He looked like a schoolboy. Maybe that’s meaningful in future. I suspect not, but I’m not a political strategist.
You could reverse that and say he's doing the bolded to traditional Labour supporters to be fair. I just look for the basics generally like putting human rights at the forefront, improving the NHS and helping poverty and I think I've made the decision to vote elsewhere next time. If the centre-left are thinking that they're in a bit of danger of not getting a full majority, and only gaining moderate right voters who are pretty likely to be transient anyway.

It's alright saying they're doing this to get in power, but they're pretty much a tory-lite at this stage based on what they actually say they'll do and there has to be some effort in actually proposing some progressive ideas. Let's wait for the manifesto I guess, maybe it will surprise me.
 

Eric_the_Red99

Full Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
1,311
Starmer et all aren’t really beating the Red Tory allegations anytime soon are they? They’re not even trying to. This isn’t about winning over moderate conservatives, this is about trying to attract the hard right lunatic fringe of the Tories.

Still, Elphicke’s views on Rashford probably align with 90% of the Caf, so….
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
32,061
Location
Ginseng Strip
To the Britons of this forum. Do you have the sensation that labour is becoming the Tory Party from 2010 and the Tory is becoming the UKIP? If so (because is what I had been reading lately here), who will fill the vacuum of Labour on the center left?
The Lib Dems will probably be looking to occupy the centre ground, especially after their strong showing in the local elections (they ended up with more councillors than the Tories). As far as leftist goes, the Greens will probably soak up most of the Labour progressives, they also did well in the council elections but are still very much a fringe party in mainstream British politics, and I'd expect them to continue being so under the FPTP electoral system unfortunately. That and the fact our media seemingly has no interest giving them any airtime, despite offering plenty to the lunatics at Reform who have far less representation.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,635
Location
Blitztown
. Let's wait for the manifesto I guess, maybe it will surprise me.
This is where I’m at. I’ll vote anti-Tory as everyone should. It’s guaranteed that my constituency (in East London) will be Labour. If it was nip and tuck with any other party AND the manifesto was shit, I’d try and punish them for being weak.

As it is, that’s a decision for 4-5 years time. Zero time for anyone that won’t just tactically vote the Tories out, and hopefully into third place, which is a dream, but possible.
 

TheGame

Full Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
19,938
Location
In the Land of Saints and Sinners
I can understand accepting the doctor with a view of getting across that the NHS is struggling under the Tories and he was standing down anyway.

Elphicke is a different kettle of fish entirely. She is a nasty piece of work, just look at her past record.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,635
Location
Blitztown
I can understand accepting the doctor with a view of getting across that the NHS is struggling under the Tories and he was standing down anyway.

Elphicke is a different kettle of fish entirely. She is a nasty piece of work, just look at her past record.
Chronically online people hate it. Me included. She’s awful.

But the 98% of people that voted for her and the Tories last time out will see her defection as a Labour endorsement.

It’s good politics but awful and something I can’t defend as a decent human.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
Chronically online people hate it. Me included. She’s awful.

But the 98% of people that voted for her and the Tories last time out will see her defection as a Labour endorsement.

It’s good politics but awful and something I can’t defend as a decent human.
We know she's going to step down and will form no part of a labour government. Both Labour and Elphicke are just using this as an opportunity to damage Rishi.
 

Fully Fledged

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
16,324
Location
Midlands UK
We know she's going to step down and will form no part of a labour government. Both Labour and Elphicke are just using this as an opportunity to damage Rishi.
Still, if you take a pipette filled with liquid shite and squirt it in a glass of clean water, the whole glass ends up with a mirky shite colour.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,635
Location
Blitztown
Still, if you take a pipette filled with liquid shite and squirt it in a glass of clean water, the whole glass ends up with a mirky shite colour.
It’s more like having a plastic cup of fresh Thames shite water with a hole in it. Taking your pipette and filling it with water from that cup.

Then, putting that in a shot glass that sits next to a glass of actually clean water.

Nobody is going to drink the shot. It’s irrelevant. She’s a cnut and I wish they’d not accepted her. But she’s standing down and Labour will be running a viable candidate in the seat.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,701
Still, if you take a pipette filled with liquid shite and squirt it in a glass of clean water, the whole glass ends up with a mirky shite colour.
:lol:

Glad I'm eating soup right now, and that glass is far from clean. It's already murky, but on this occasion it's not even making it as far as the glass.
 

Fully Fledged

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
16,324
Location
Midlands UK
It’s more like having a plastic cup of fresh Thames shite water with a hole in it. Taking your pipette and filling it with water from that cup.

Then, putting that in a shot glass that sits next to a glass of actually clean water.

Nobody is going to drink the shot. It’s irrelevant. She’s a cnut and I wish they’d not accepted her. But she’s standing down and Labour will be running a viable candidate in the seat.
:lol:

Glad I'm eating soup right now, and that glass is far from clean. It's already murky, but on this occasion it's not even making it as far as the glass.
From what I saw at PMQS it was sitting right in the middle of the glass. Yes the water was already mirky.

I get that she's not sitting at the next election but there needs to be lines you will not cross. With some of the party members that have been expelled from the party for sitting next to someone who said something dubious to welcoming someone who at best has said things that could be considered racist just doesn't sit right with me.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,635
Location
Blitztown
From what I saw at PMQS it was sitting right in the middle of the glass. Yes the water was already mirky.

I get that she's not sitting at the next election but there needs to be lines you will not cross. With some of the party members that have been expelled from the party for sitting next to someone who said something dubious to welcoming someone who at best has said things that could be considered racist just doesn't sit right with me.
I don’t think most people are aware of this though. The Mail, Sun, Express readers, who watch Good Morning Britain and such, see this shit as ‘Even the Tories that want to stop the boats know that Labour will do a better job of it’.

I know this as that’s a large part of my family. They see this as a bigger statement than any sensible Labour plan to fight the gangs and open legal routes. It does have a purpose.

But yes, still a disgusting piece of shit to have in the Labour waters.