Westminster Politics

[Bobade]

If you actually improve lives, improve the economy and things are going well, how are you going to be unelected?

Because he won't improve lives, in my opinion.

Your whole thought process here is so bizarre. But let's assume that Starmer does have loads of great ideas that he simply can't state at the moment because both elements of the public and the press will castigate him, leading him to lose the election. What will simply happen is he will then unveil them after winning the election and get a massive slagging off from the press for being a) a lefty and b) having no conviction. Then he will U turn. And that is the best outcome here, the one that actually assumed Starmer does have these policies.

Hope I'm wrong and you're right, to be honest. But even if that is the case, that scenario relies on Starmer ripping up his election promises.... which might not be ideal also.

 

[Eplel]

All this discussion is based on the premise that the electorate is sane and logical. Large part of it is definitely not

 

[cafecillos]

All this discussion is based on the premise that the electorate is sane and logical. Large part of it is definitely not

Which is why they would be hiding all these great policies in the first place. The whole reasoning is insane.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

There is only one way to stop these boats and that's to let them onto ships and process them in the UK. I can't see either happening in a very long time.

STOP THE BOATS

[Quick, purchase A MASSIVE feckING BOAT to keep them on]

 

[finneh]

Why? They don't work?

So why is he proposing them now?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

It's an accurate summary of what you just said. Promise anything to get power and then break all pledges and do the opposite.

If that's your thinking now, does it not apply to the subsequent election? Or are Labour having broken all their pledges going to magically convince everyone they can be trusted again?

It's a sure fire way to a one term government.

Again, I think everyone in here really overestimates the publics capacity for in-depth thought.

"Oh no, we actually built ten hospitals, reduced GP waiting times, and lowered inflation - shit, they're going to turf me out because I didn't send immigrants to Rwanda.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

It's extremely weird indeed, so can you clarify how they'd get re-elected if they enact policies when in government that they had to hide and lie about to get elected in the first place?

They don't hide their policies ffs, they're in their manifesto, you're talking about when Starmer is asked in a vox pop or interview what he would do.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Because he won't improve lives, in my opinion.

Your whole thought process here is so bizarre. But let's assume that Starmer does have loads of great ideas that he simply can't state at the moment because both elements of the public and the press will castigate him, leading him to lose the election. What will simply happen is he will then unveil them after winning the election and get a massive slagging off from the press for being a) a lefty and b) having no conviction. Then he will U turn. And that is the best outcome here, the one that actually assumed Starmer does have these policies.

Hope I'm wrong and you're right, to be honest. But even if that is the case, that scenario relies on Starmer ripping up his election promises.... which might not be ideal also.

Why?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

So why is he proposing them now?

Because they're popular with the morons in this country/make it harder for the right-wing press to vilify him.

 

[cafecillos]

They don't hide their policies ffs, they're in their manifesto, you're talking about when Starmer is asked in a vox pop or interview what he would do.

So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier

 

[Abizzz]

STOP THE BOATS

[Quick, purchase A MASSIVE feckING BOAT to keep them on]

Could let them on passenger trains through the chunnel too I guess. British politicians set themselves up to fail when they said the boats need to stop.

It's yet another prime example of their stupidity and inability to think things through in the bigger picture. They saw a dinghy or two and thought to themselves that's an easy promise, we rule the waves. All while knowing feck all about fecking anything, true Tory style.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier

Nah, just people don't understand how to win elections.

 

[finneh]

Because they're popular with the morons in this country/make it harder for the right-wing press to vilify him.

This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Logic suggests therefore that whatever he's proposing in order to win in 2024 is likely to be what he tries to enact whilst in government and also what he campaigns on for success in 2029.

It would be a very strange tactic in terms of re-election for him to covet and ultimately win dozens of (currently Tory) seats based on a strict immigration policy, fiscal conservatism, no EU single market / CU and a modest green agenda; but then for him to liberalise the immigration system, join the customs union and go on a green spending spree once elected (and then be booted out in 2029).

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Logic suggests therefore that whatever he's proposing in order to win in 2024 is likely to be what he tries to enact whilst in government and also what he campaigns on for success in 2029.

It would be a very strange tactic in terms of re-election for him to covet and ultimately win dozens of (currently Tory) seats based on a strict immigration policy, fiscal conservatism, no EU single market / CU and a modest green agenda; but then for him to liberalise the immigration system, join the customs union and go on a green spending spree once elected (and then be booted out in 2029).

So he just keeps enacting policies that don't work to appease the public, to be reelected, so he can enact more policies that don't work?

That's circular mate.

You get elected, you impact lives in a positive way. People will be too busy being happy at not waiting 8 weeks for a GP appointment, or two years for a hip operation to be annoyed you didn't do some random policy point you said you would, in an interview, five years ago.

I also think you can create so much good stuff while in government that it would be too much work to dismantle it and it becomes the new status quo. Remember for example the Tories disagreed with minimum wage, yet when they got in, they didn't repeal it, it's still here.

You honestly think if you put in policies that make the NHS work like it did in 08, the Tories are going to campaign to make it......worse? That makes zero sense.

 

[Eplel]

This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Agree with this. Also, the policies shape the electorate just as much as the electorate shape the policies.

For example, for years the oil industry and the automotive industries have lobbied governments to ensure car is first, and that has brought an induced demand of high car ownership, even in central London, where you virtually don't need a car, with few exceptions.
Now that green policies are more prominent, you can see that Sunak eyes car owners as one of the last bastions of voter groups he can win over. This wouldn't have been a thing if the british government didn't force a managed decline in public transport for decades.

 

[Fully Fledged]

So, there are 91,047 asylum seekers in the UK. They have brought a barge at great expense to house 500 of them. Tell me how it isn't an overpriced 'Offal Tube'?

 

[finneh]

So he just keeps enacting policies that don't work to appease the public, to be reelected, so he can enact more policies that don't work?

That's circular mate.

You get elected, you impact lives in a positive way. People will be too busy being happy at not waiting 8 weeks for a GP appointment, or two years for a hip operation to be annoyed you didn't do some random policy point you said you would, in an interview, five years ago.

I also think you can create so much good stuff while in government that it would be too much work to dismantle it and it becomes the new status quo. Remember for example the Tories disagreed with minimum wage, yet when they got in, they didn't repeal it, it's still here.

You honestly think if you put in policies that make the NHS work like it did in 08, the Tories are going to campaign to make it......worse? That makes zero sense.

My view is he'll enact policies that are seen as tough on immigration and he will be fiscally coversative in order to keep the voters he will win next year on side in order to win again in 2029.

I don't think he'll: re-nationalise industries, abolish Universal credit, open legal asylum routes, re-enter the Single Market, abolish tuition fee's etc.

On that point let's try to be a bit more specific, rather than talking in generalaties. Which of the below do you believe Starmer will action?

• Do you believe that he will apply to re-enter the EU Custom's Union or Single Market in his first term?
• Do you believe that he will reintroduce free movement of people across the EU?
• Do you believe that he will spend £28b extra on Green policies in his first full financial year in office, or indeed by the end of his first term?
• Do you believe that he will set up legal routes for asylum seekers across Africa, Asia and/or South America?
• Do you believe that he will enact policies reflecting his previous views on self-ID?
• Do you believe that he will abolish the two-child limit benefits cap in his first term?
• Do you believe that he will abolish the benefit's cap?
• Do you believe that he will re-nationalise Energy, Rail, Water and/or Royal Mail?
• Do you believe that he will roll back private involvement in the NHS?
• Do you believe that he will abolish Universal Credit?
• Do you believe that he will abolish University tuition fee's?
• Do you believe that he will ensure full childcare provision until primary school age?
• Do you believe that he will introduce a tax on tech companies?
• Do you believe that he will roll back on the oil exploration licences granted by Sunak?
• Do you believe that he will increase income tax on the top 5% of earners?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

My view is he'll enact policies that are seen as tough on immigration and he will be fiscally coversative in order to keep the voters he will win next year on side in order to win again in 2029.

I don't think he'll: re-nationalise industries, abolish Universal credit, open legal asylum routes, re-enter the Single Market, abolish tuition fee's etc.

On that point let's try to be a bit more specific, rather than talking in generalaties. Which of the below do you believe Starmer will action?

• Do you believe that he will apply to re-enter the EU Custom's Union or Single Market in his first term? Unfortunately not, this is too bold a policy but it would be my first policy enacted, big bump to GDP and you can spend on more things.
• Do you believe that he will reintroduce free movement of people across the EU? This isn't something Labour can do? This is the EU.
• Do you believe that he will spend £28b extra on Green policies in his first full financial year in office, or indeed by the end of his first term? Potentially over 5 years, but not in year one, as that would most likely be wasted by spending it on projects that wouldn't benefit but would make a good splash to people who want to see green policies.
• Do you believe that he will set up legal routes for asylum seekers across Africa, Asia, and/or South America? I think he will fund and open asylum channels to clear the backlog of claims and remove the boat crossings, but not necessarily grant a level of asylum people want to see. I think Aslyum will increase but that is not difficult given the low levels.
• Do you believe that he will enact policies reflecting his previous views on self-ID? Don't know his previous or current views on this, so cannot answer.
• Do you believe that he will abolish the two-child limit benefits cap in his first term? I think they will set out to rework the benefits system and lifting of this cap at some point through the first term.
• Do you believe that he will abolish the benefit's cap? Increase to align with inflation/cost of living.
• Do you believe that he will re-nationalise Energy, Rail, Water and/or Royal Mail? They will attempt it first with water, energy and rail I can see being a bridge too far inside of 5 years. Again, if I was PM, this would be second on my agenda.
• Do you believe that he will roll back private involvement in the NHS? No, I think they will increase funding in conjunction with finding a way to use private providers to complement the NHS in non-emergency/elective areas.
• Do you believe that he will abolish Universal Credit? No, this will be a reorganizing/increase in levels to align with inflation.
• Do you believe that he will abolish University tuition fee's? No, I think they will stay the same/ be capped/stop further increase. This would be third on my personal agenda.
• Do you believe that he will ensure full childcare provision until primary school age? I think this is being proposed now under the Tories, so imagine these trials will continue under labour.
• Do you believe that he will introduce a tax on tech companies? I think he will increase CGT by a few % points but not specifically target tech companies.
• Do you believe that he will roll back on the oil exploration licences granted by Sunak? No, I think he will keep them but not put forward anymore.
• Do you believe that he will increase income tax on the top 5% of earners? I don't think he will raise taxes on people on £75k, no.

Answered in bold.

 

[Maticmaker]

Any politican telling you people arriving are 'illegal' is lying.

I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes, who also traffic many who are not genuine asylum seekers, then they are taking part in an illegal and unsafe activity.
The fact that there is no alternative, should receive sympathetic consideration, but still it does not make the act of people trafficking in small boats either safe or legal and any government has to solve that problem first, if only because the media and the vast majority of the public demand it. Further more the likelihood of a 'proper' search for alternatives being found, will not receive any urgent consideration until the arrival of people, asylum seekers or whoever, on small boats is stopped.

If there was a method for them to contact the authorities before they got into a boat,

There are methods and those with full identity paperwork and proof of the dangers they face and the persecution they fear that makes them legitimate asylum seekers, should use these methods, but we all know these methods are cumbersome and take too long and so people head to the people traffickers and illegal transportation.
Any government in the UK will have to stop the boats before they get public support to look for alternatives.

There is only one way to stop these boats and that's to let them onto ships and process them in the UK. I can't see either happening in a very long time.

I agree, there are better solutions, safer and quicker, but the government, any government cannot undertake such alternatives until the issue of criminal gangs illegally trafficking 'legal asylum seekers' along with others who have no such claim, is ended.
I do believe the present government is making this a bigger issue than it should be, for political purposes, but anyone who thinks a change of government will see the small boats issue accepted, is living in dream land. End the small boats issue then there is a way forward to be found

That is where the gaslighting has happened though, as people who are trafficked across the Channel aren’t arriving illegally, in the exact same way that women trafficked across borders for sex gangs don’t arrive illegally.

Any trafficking of people across borders, without due process is, illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal because of who they are, but how they have chosen to arrive, by paying criminal gangs to take them. Similarly women who have chosen/agreed to be trafficked over borders and who are paying for this are taking part in an illegal activity, if they are forced into illegal trafficking routes, then they have been kidnapped victims and have not chosen that route of their own free will.

 

[finneh]

Answered in bold.

The majority of those answers would be similar of Sunak, no?

Your answers certainly don't seem to be someone who's leaving behind a Tory-light manifesto in favour of great positive change as soon as he's elected.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes, who also traffic many who are not genuine asylum seekers, then they are taking part in an illegal and unsafe activity.
The fact that there is no alternative, should receive sympathetic consideration, but still it does not make the act of people trafficking in small boats either safe or legal and any government has to solve that problem first, if only because the media and the vast majority of the public demand it. Further more the likelihood of a 'proper' search for alternatives being found, will not receive any urgent consideration until the arrival of people, asylum seekers or whoever, on small boats is stopped.


There are methods and those with full identity paperwork and proof of the dangers they face and the persecution they fear that makes them legitimate asylum seekers, should use these methods, but we all know these methods are cumbersome and take too long and so people head to the people traffickers and illegal transportation.
Any government in the UK will have to stop the boats before they get public support to look for alternatives.


I agree, there are better solutions, safer and quicker, but the government, any government cannot undertake such alternatives until the issue of criminal gangs illegally trafficking 'legal asylum seekers' along with others who have no such claim, is ended.
I do believe the present government is making this a bigger issue than it should be, for political purposes, but anyone who thinks a change of government will see the small boats issue accepted, is living in dream land. End the small boats issue then there is a way forward to be found




Any trafficking of people across borders, without due process is, illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal because of who they are, but how they have chosen to arrive, by paying criminal gangs to take them. Similarly women who have chosen/agreed to be trafficked over borders and who are paying for this are taking part in an illegal activity, if they are forced into illegal trafficking routes, then they have been kidnapped victims and have not chosen that route of their own free will.

Braverman has even admitted that there are very few legal routes available, for 3 countries I believe. Even the relatives of British citizens trying to flee Sudan were refused.

It's a game and the public have fallen for it, yet again, they always do because the government know what triggers them.

The small boats are not going to stop. The illegal trafficking gangs are not going to disappear. Putting an asylum seeker in a barge or to some distant land is not a deterrent to a trafficker. What do they care? How are the government or Labour or any other idiots going to stop them?

Legal accessible routes is the only way.
You are still insisting on the legal ID, do you think Ukrainians whose homes were bombed had all their ID. You don't know, I don't know. It's yet more government propaganda. Would anyone believe what the government say. Obviously many do because it's what they want to hear.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Could let them on passenger trains through the chunnel too I guess. British politicians set themselves up to fail when they said the boats need to stop.

It's yet another prime example of their stupidity and inability to think things through in the bigger picture. They saw a dinghy or two and thought to themselves that's an easy promise, we rule the waves. All while knowing feck all about fecking anything, true Tory style.

They’ve literally handed the opposition a baseball bat to beat them with. The opposition has looked at it as if it’s a spoon.

They have a massive mission critical pledge to STOP THE BOATS. They’ve literally bought a Fcuking boat.

There are no means to satire there. Short of buying Fire stations a bunch of flamethrowers, they’re surely got no lower to sink.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes,

Go and Look at the actual data on the number of asylum seekers arriving via criminal gangs. It’s vanishingly small.

You’re basing your point of position on eating a shit sandwich, presented to you by a lying chef.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

The majority of those answers would be similar of Sunak, no?

Your answers certainly don't seem to be someone who's leaving behind a Tory-light manifesto in favour of great positive change as soon as he's elected.

Meh, I think the requests you put forward were utopian and naive. No one, not any government would be enable to enact some of those, let alone all of those in four to five years. I also don't believe Sunak would do any of the things I posted.

Some were random and niche, others seemed vague.

 

[finneh]

Meh, I think the requests you put forward were utopian and naive. No one, not any government would be enable to enact some of those, let alone all of those in four to five years. I also don't believe Sunak would do any of the things I posted.

Some were random and niche, others seemed vague.

The vast majority were Starmer's own positions over the last few years in truth.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

The vast majority were Starmer's own positions over the last few years in truth.

Yes, and he's realised they're likely to not be elected if they keep spouting these unachievable and easily derided policies

 

[finneh]

Yes, and he's realised they're likely to not be elected if they keep spouting these unachievable and easily derided policies

I actually very much agree, but can completely understand people who would prefer to vote for policies they actually believe in, rather than a slight divergence from the current governance.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I actually very much agree, but can completely understand people who would prefer to vote for policies they actually believe in, rather than a slight divergence from the current governance.

I don't think it's that far apart, the first goal is getting elected. Without it, nothing can happen.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Buster15]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

How to win friends and influence others.
The Tories are only focusing on one subject. Immigration. And even that is a total disaster.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Whatever it takes, these scumbag c**ts have to be booted out of parliament.

Edit: at some point, you'll have elected politicians calling these migrants

Spoiler

"rag-heads" or "muzzers"

on Twitter, and the rest of the party machine will go on the morning round to defend it. I feel so deeply ashamed and angry at this country.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

And yet if someone told one of them to feck off they would be up in arms with faux outrage demanding an apology. cnuts.

 

[FireballXL5]

Hate speech = 'salty terms'.

 

[TheGame]

There was a time and place where comments like that would result in suspension and possible expulsion from the party. Just shows how much in the gutter the Conservative Party have brought British politics.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

There was a time and place where comments like that would result in suspension and possible expulsion from the party. Just shows how much in the gutter the Conservative Party have brought British politics.

No matter what they do, they'll never have the press call them out for it.

Brown immediately apologized "profusely" on the radio show to Gillian Duffy, the woman he called bigoted.

Duffy questioned Brown on why so many "Eastern Europeans" were being allowed into Britain. Brown calmly explained that as many Brits had moved to Europe as Europeans had moved to Britain.

Brown's trip to Duffy's house became a major political spectacle in Britain. He was greeted by a frenzied crowd of journalists. "Has this ruined your campaign?" one journalist asked. "Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown do you regret your comments to Mrs Duffy?" others yelled.

"This is a disaster," BBC News' Political Editor Nick Robinson immediately claimed. "He insulted a member of the public and not just any member of the public....the very sort of voter Labour [Gordon Brown] needs in this election....white, working class people...the sort of people who vote."

"I do apologize if I've said anything that has been hurtful," Brown said on the air.

"He's an educated person, why has he come out with words like that?" Duffy asked. "He's calling an ordinary woman who's just come up and asked questions ... a bigot."

"I think Gordon Brown has apologized. Quite right, too, because if you are answering peoples' questions, you have got to answer those questions with a sense of respect, whatever you think of them, not insult them." Clegg told Sky News.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader has yet to comment but his number two, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, said "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

Gary O'Donoghue, BBC political correspondent, was certain of the damage Brown had caused.

"People often talk about political gaffes in terms of car crashes. But this is no car crash, this is a multi-lane, multi-vehicle pile-up of enormous proportion," he wrote on the BBC news website.

If only the media were interested in creating a scandal when it came to actual Tory scandals...

 

[Maticmaker]

The small boats are not going to stop

Of course they are, there is no other way forward for this or any other the government in resolving current or future border security, especially for an island nation . Along with climate change, migration, energy and water issues will all dominate the next two or may be three decades. Governments (of whatever hue) will have to 'get tough' in all these matters, those that don't will face political oblivion.

It is undoubtedly true the Tories are using this as a political 'means to and end', but if they succeed then Labour will have to do the same.

A government, any governments' first duty is the protection of its people, this is where the Tories/Right wing press are taking this matter and they will seek to escalate it and will probably try to establish the position before Rishi calls the next GE. If they are successful then Labour could struggle to gain a decent majority at the next GE, which is what the Tories now hope for, they know they cant win, but they can 'hobble' any new Labour Government taking office with a small majority, and the small boats issue is their 'Trojan horse', in doing just that.

Go and Look at the actual data on the number of asylum seekers arriving via criminal gangs. It’s vanishingly small.

The size of the matter will be irrelevant in political terms, they are using criminal activity to try to force their claims, which may well be justified, but this aspect will continue to get lost in the political mix, especially less than 2 years out from a GE where the present government is facing annihilation or close to it next time out.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Of course they are, there is no other way forward for this or any other the government in resolving current or future border security, especially for an island nation . Along with climate change, migration, energy and water issues will all dominate the next two or may be three decades. Governments (of whatever hue) will have to 'get tough' in all these matters, those that don't will face political oblivion.

It is undoubtedly true the Tories are using this as a political 'means to and end', but if they succeed then Labour will have to do the same.

A government, any governments' first duty is the protection of its people, this is where the Tories/Right wing press are taking this matter and they will seek to escalate it and will probably try to establish the position before Rishi calls the next GE. If they are successful then Labour could struggle to gain a decent majority at the next GE, which is what the Tories now hope for, they know they cant win, but they can 'hobble' any new Labour Government taking office with a small minority, and the small boats issue is their 'Trojan horse', in doing just that.



The size of the matter will be irrelevant in political terms, they are using criminal activity to try to force their claims, which may well be justified, but this aspect will continue get lost in the political mix, especially less than 2 years out from a GE where the present government is facing annihilation or close to it next time out.

Of course it's a political weapon but they don't want to solve it even if they could. The government have completely messed up the country in every way imaginable. The only thing they've got left are foreigners.
But you never hear of them arresting any traffickers in the UK, which is where some of them are as part of the network.

There is only one way of at least reducing it and that is the safe legal route method. They have no power outside of the UK. Brexit has meant they have no control outside the Dublin agreement.

If they carry on with the current programme which will probably break the ECHR and the UN regulations, they'll do even more damage to the country by possibly losing their trade deals.

None of this matters, only power.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Maticmaker]

Of course it's a political weapon but they don't want to solve it even if they could. The government have completely messed up the country in every way imaginable. The only thing they've got left are foreigners.
But you never hear of them arresting any traffickers in the UK, which is where some of them are as part of the network.

There is only one way of at least reducing it and that is the safe legal route method. They have no power outside of the UK. Brexit has meant they have no control outside the Dublin agreement.

If they carry on with the current programme which will probably break the ECHR and the UN regulations, they'll do even more damage to the country by possibly losing their trade deals.

None of this matters, only power.

At least not until after the next GE!

This is not really about a present day issue, there are solutions available; it is however about future issues. The storm clouds are gathering on a number of fronts and all governments will have to face up to the unpleasant decision making, that is looming. 'Playing it tough', especially if for the Tories they believe helps either retain power, or as is more likely to limit the losses for them and/or the majority for the opposition.... Power as you say. is what its all about, and in our FPTP system.... 'first is first, and seconds nowhere'.