UK Politics

I think they are only stopping the odd one as in a token gesture to be seen as being active. In reality they want shut of them and hand the problem to us

 

probably catch just enough for their target so we keep paying them

 

For the obvious reasons that it’s dependent on
a) just how bad the books look when they get access to them in government - which will affect what they can afford to allocate to this, compared to other priorities
b) how much cooperation they are able to negotiate with European governments and NGOs, This is likely to be a lot more than the aggressively europhobe Tories can manage, but its full extent won’t be clear until serious negotiations begin as a government
c) not giving too much information so the Tories can try to steal their plan, as they already have done with several other policies
d) not wanting to give the right wing media anything that they can distort, caricature or otherwise misrepresent ahead of the GE.

They’ve explicitly said that they intend to improve border security and go after the smuggling gangs more aggressively, as opposed to spending billions on flying a tiny proportion of asylum seekers off to a highly dodgy African country that is laughing all the way to the bank. That seems pretty clear to me. What else do you expect them to say?

 

And I’m sure we would do the exact same thing if the situation were reversed and we were the migrants’ intended destination rather than a stopping point en route.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/24/labour-promises-rail-nationalisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Clear Labour policy to renationalise the railway companies as each of their contracts comes to an end. Long overdue. Hopefully the start of policy announcements putting clear water between Labour and the serially failing Tories.
It’s no accident that the railway networks of most European countries are State run and almost invariably far better than ours. The state of our railways is a disgrace. Railway privatisation has been one of the worst of the various Tory privatisation disasters for this country - probably only equalled by the legalised extortion schemes operated by the utility companies.

 

I'm sure we would

 

Nah, I'm not having that.

They're announcing other proposals without knowing the exact details of the budget.

If the proposal is dependent on agreement with the EU then that's explainable and fine.

The Conservatives have nailed their colours to the Rwanda mast very firmly. If they pivoted to copy another proposal it would be a nail in their coffin not a benefit.

Poor political behaviour should be pointed out even when it's your side. Don't make excuses.

 

You may not like it, but Starmer and Co don’t give a monkeys what you think. They’re consistently 20 points ahead in the polls, simply by not being the Tories. Nothing this set of idiots in government do is going to turn that around. The country is utterly sick of them and just wants them gone. Sunak is hanging on for as long as possible hoping that there’ll be a Labour scandal or some other self inflicted wound that the press can jump on to reduce the damage. So Starmer is going to keep on sitting tight and offer no hostages to fortune. I’m sure there’ll be a few more policy details in the manifesto once the election date is known and the official election campaign period is underway. Until then it’ll be as you were.

 

Completely agree. Exactly my point.

Not caring what the electorate thinks and hiding things from them is bad politics.

But people like you don't care that they don't know what they're voting for as long as its got a red background......and that is fine....but its horrendous democracy. There's nothing wrong with admitting it, it's better than trying to give excuses for the lack of transparency.

 

I absolutely do know what I’m voting for. I’m voting for a party that has a Keynesian approach to economics; that doesn’t think sensible, targeted government spending are dirty words; which is committed to social justice, reducing, poverty and the record levels of income inequality; which is ideologically committed to a decent NHS, decent welfare state safety net and good quality public services. I don’t need to know the fine detail of how they will attempt to achieve those things; the means and timescales will depend on economic circumstances and how quickly they can proceed politically, bearing in mind that they will need at least two terms in power to make any dent in the carnage that the Tories have caused.
More importantly, I know exactly what I’m voting against. A washed up clique of old Etonian/Oxford Uni cronies who have spent the last fourteen years doing government jobs that none of them are remotely qualified for or capable of doing well. A set of economic incompetents, still in thrall to their heroine Thatcher’s discredited monetarist nonsense. A bunch of privileged, entitled toffs who slash and burn with no idea or care about how their ideological actions affect the ordinary people that they never have any contact with and, in many cases, openly despise.
If this sounds extreme to you, I suggest you read this:
https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/simon-kuper/chums/9781788167390

I’ve always hated Tory ideology and felt that many of them had their snouts in the trough. But the extent of the nepotism, elitism and incompetence revealed in this book shocked even me.

 

Please explain the immigration policy in that case.

These are just generic left wing ideology that may or may not apply to the current labour party. Please provide the specifics that they don't.

 

Why should I? I’m not voting Labour because of their immigration policy, although I don’t doubt that it will be better than the Tories’ shambles. Unlike some on here, I’m not obsessed with immigration as a big issue so I have no need to worry about Labour’s policy on it or attempt to explain it. It’s simply not a deal breaker for me.

However, Labour have said that they will improve border security and work with Europe to more aggressively target the people smuggling gangs. That sounds like a coherent policy to me. I wouldn’t expect any more detail at this stage.

They have also said that they will work towards improvements in the health and social care sectors. That will be a tough ask, because of the economic shambles they’ll inherit, but training more homegrown doctors and nurses and improving the lot of social care staff is the best way to reduce the need for 750,000 legal immigrants, to keep those sectors just about afloat, that the Tories have created. I’m confident that Labour will attempt to address this problem, although it will take time, but if the Tories were to stay in power that situation would just keep getting worse and worse.

You may call the things I listed ‘generic left wing ideology’. I prefer to call them the core values of a decent modern developed society. Either way, those are the values that I will base my vote on and they are values shared by most Labour Party members, MPs and the party leadership. I may have some quibbles about certain policies or their absence but I know that Labour is the party most likely to work towards the kind of society that I want to see.
It’s perfectly reasonable to base one’s vote on a set of values, rather than the fine detail of specific policies. They are values that are anathema to most Tory MPs and supporters, which is why I have never voted for them and never could.

The Tories have been a spectacular disaster for this country. The longer they are in power, the worse it gets. The fine detail of what Labour will or won’t do is almost beside the point. Simply by being basically diligent and competent - which I’m sure they are - they cannot fail to be better than the current set of charlatans and dilettantes. So please stop asking me about the detail of specific policies. It’s much more fundamental than that. One party is primarily interested in keeping power and wealth in the hands of its privileged friends, really doesn’t give a stuff about the lives of most ordinary people and has presided over the biggest fall in general living standards since the 19th century. Should that party be allowed to remain in power for a further five years? The answer is clearly, no. Everything else pales into insignificance beside that fundamental truth.

 

That's quite a long way to say that you don't know what you're voting for in terms of immigration. Nothing wrong with that and if it's not a dealbreaker for you that's fine but let's not pretend that for people who it is an issue for should have enough information to make an informed decision. That's not a "fine detail" it's the basis of the government.

But what you're saying is that any Labour Party is better than any Conservative Party. But that can't be the case unless you believe that Blair and Corbyn are politically the same. So you don't care about details because no matter what they say they will do you will put your X in the same red box. And that's fine.

But for people who want to weigh up details and know what they're voting for the current Labour stance feels wrong. Not that it actually matters because they'll get in no matter what they say but the whole reason democracy works is because people should know the details - not just the ideology - of what they're leaders plan to do.

 

The SNP look all but finished in Scotland. Off the back of Nicola's husband being charged with embezzlement of funds from the SNP we now have a first minister who probably won't last the weekend unless he tries to cling on and then be removed from pressure following a no confidence vote anyhow.

It really does look like in the next election it won't be Labour who win it, it will be SNP, Tories, etc all who have thrown it away by being absolute disasters.

 

Yes, I do believe a Corbyn government would have been better than the Tories. Doesn’t mean I was happy with him as leader but some of his policies were good. Since I’ve yet to experience a good Tory government in my 67 years I can’t ever envisage voting for them. I detest their values and policies on most things, so why would I ever vote for them? And the last fourteen years have proved that not only are they morally bankrupt, they’re also incompetent in the extreme.

What exactly is it that you want Labour to reveal about their immigration policy that they haven’t already said? They’ve said they will improve the border security force (that the Tories have run down) and work closer with Europe to target the traffickers. That’s a policy - what else do you expect them to say?
And on legal immigration they’ll train more re people in health and care to reduce reliance on imported labour. Most people aren’t fine detail obsessives like you. They want to know the direction of travel not every jot and tittle.

 

Classic.....you're definitely one of a kind...

 

It's not obsessive, I'd just like to know what I'm voting for and be able to measure politicians against what they've promised. We all do it with the Conservative's without a second thought so why should Labour be any different?

I'd like to know what that means and why it would work - it's not detail but that's just incredibly loose. Why would Europe be more willing to target the trafickers than they have been previously and what would Labour be willing to give up in return? I don't fundamentally think Europe want to help us with limiting the number of people crossing the channel (every previous soundbite from them from both when we were in and out of the EU has been about countries taking their fair share rather than stopping anything at all) so if Labour somehow struck a deal with the EU where they would stop the boats (How, I'm not sure) but we were committing to take on board 1m people a year who had travelled into Southern Italy/France then Labour would have achieved their loose "policy", but it wouldn't be something that would placate people who think illegal immigration is important to stop. That's why detail is important.

And on legal immigration I'm not that fussed to some degree and I think that's a fair policy even if I'm not quite sure that it's the training that's the issue, but I don't disagree with it if it's part of a wider suite of policies. But once again detail is important - we train about 35,000 nurses a year and 10,000 doctors in the UK - how many more would we need to train to make a dint in a 750,000 net immigration figure, is there demand for people to train in those areas and where would they go to do the training - have universities got spaces for 90,000 people to train every year for example?

 

It’s not just about France though. Many of the boat people have travelled through several EU countries before they get to France.