UK Politics

Yes, it’s not just about training nurses and doctors. It’s also about improving pay and conditions in the social care sector so that more British citizens are encouraged to take jobs there instead of importing more labour from overseas.

I don’t know exactly what Labour are planning re cooperation with Europe on immigration. I know that there have been informal talks so I imagine ideas are at an early stage. If they do have clearer plans they probably don’t want to say too much to avoid the Tories attempting to steal them and also to avoid the Tory press misrepresenting them.
I realise that this is unsatisfactory to you but it is what it is. Opposition parties that think they’ve a chance of being elected always keep some ideas up their sleeve, especially if they might be controversial or they’re not fully formulated. It’s called realpolitik. As I say, it’s not a big deal to me.

 

Which is a much more complex scenario that what you outlined before so the question of "how" becomes an even more pertinent question, especially when the government don't directly control the pay and conditions of the vast, vast number of roles in that sector. The top level ideal is one that everyone can agree with the the detail of it becomes the key point of whether the electorate can judge if it might work. Training up a number of staff is just the easy part that falls down with the slightest bit of logical thinking.

Which take me back to the original point that you're not bothered because you'd vote Labour no matter what they did, it's taken about 3 posts and you've gone from saying the Labour policy is utterly clear to saying you don't know what they're planning, and that is just bad politics.

Let's be honest. There's more chance of Corbyn crossing the house and leading the Tories into the next election than there is of Sunak dropping the Rwanda policy to steal a Labour idea about having closer EU ties and having a give-and-take relationship with them on Immigration so that can't be the reason.

There can only be two, maybe three, reasons for it. Either they don't know what it will look like in the end so cover it with vague statements so they don't have to admit it, they know it will be massively unpopular with a vast number of the public so want to hide it until they have power in their hands, or they know that it will fall down at the slightest scrutiny. All three options are bad for democracy and there's no shame in admitting it even when it's "your" party that are doing it.

 

I think the policy is very clear - improve border security and work closer with Europe to target the gangs. I accept that the detail of how to achieve that policy is much less clear. But, as I said, opposition governments in waiting always have some policies that are formulated in detail and others that are less well developed. I agree that this is less than ideal, but it’s probably inevitable. It’s also exacerbated in Labour’s case. When you have a press that is mostly owned by right wing tax exile billionaires who are, at best, deeply suspicious and, more usually, openly hostile to anything even mildly left of centre-right ideas then the pressure on Labour to keep their powder dry and avoid any hostages to fortune is overwhelming. That’s why Starmer has become obsessed with cautious policy announcements and saying nothing that could be twisted or misinterpreted by those just itching to pile in on him. We’ve seen prospective Labour victories snatched away at the eleventh hour by slip ups and press demonisation so I understand the ultra cautious approach.
There’s a lot of polling evidence that the public are now actually far more liberal in their attitudes than the Tories and their press henchmen give credit for and that what they want is positive state intervention to restore the damage the Tories have caused. You could argue that this should make Starmer less cautious but, given the history, I don’t blame him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/30/rishi-sunak-doom-loop-cruel-tories-conservatives?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

It's such a poor excuse though.

Liz Truss' right wing policies had widespread media derision. ALL political changes, especially radial ones are met with skepticism from the press - mainly because knocking politicians sells more papers than saying what a good job they're doing. Politicians can't and shouldn't shy away from media scrutiny - and even worse is avoiding scrutiny during an election so that you can only be scrutinised for the same decision once you're in power. That's borderline underhand.

 

There’s a difference though. Liz Truss’s policies had media derision because they were genuinely derisive and inept. And only after they caused an economic crisis. The Telegraph, Express, Mail and Sun weren’t ripping into them before she enacted them, even though it was known what she was planning. In fact there are still a fair few journos on the right who think what she did was good and her failure was all a big conspiracy, rather than obvious economic incompetence that was bound to go down terribly with the money markets.

By contrast, Labour’s policies are not only usually opposed in advance by the majority of the papers but also frequently distorted and misrepresented in a concerted attempt to undermine them. This rarely happens to anything like the same extent to Tory policies. Even if the right wing press are sceptical of them they usually keep quiet until after they’ve been tried and failed.
Look at the Rwanda scheme. It’s extortionate, ineffective and utterly bonkers. This is acknowledged in private by large numbers of Tory MPs, who only voted for it because they were three line whipped to do so. But are any of the Tory papers (which is most of them) even critiquing it, let alone lampooning it the way they do to Labour ideas? No. They’re using it to attack those who oppose it and to exacerbate their favourite bogeyman stereotypes - ‘lefty lawyers, traitorous judges, woke campaigners etc’ - often with dog whistle articles designed to appeal to xenophobes who can’t or don’t want to distinguish between legal immigrants, genuine flee-ers from persecution and the small number of disingenuous economic migrants.

All the while the print media is so heavily lined up against it Labour will have to be much more cautious than the Tories about what they say in advance of an election. I agree that this is a bad situation and doesn’t make for good politics. But it is what it is and isn’t going to change any time soon. And it’s only one of a huge number of dysfunctional aspects in our political system.

 

These do actually exist, sorry to tell you

From France...?

Wrong, it's clearly the majority

* Here to help ....

 

So one asylum seeker who was refused has been given £3,000 and 5 years bed and board in a bribe to go to Rwanda so Rishi Sunak can make it look like his plan is working.

They really do take everyone for fools. Firstly there are the people from Rwanda who come here in return and forgive me if I am wrong with this, but wasn't the whole idea of Rwanda to take people who had arrived here and move them to Rwanda for processing, not to send 1 failed asylum seeker who has gone voluntarily with a wedge of cash in their back pocket.

 

Total bullshit.

As long as we have had a separation of powers between Parliament and the court system (hundreds of years) we’ve had lawyers who’ve specialised in representing individuals against the power of the state. And judges who have upheld the law when governments have tried to ignore it. And thank goodness we still do. It’s a fundamental aspect of our political system. Suppressing independent lawyers and judiciary is a hallmark of a tyrant state.

They don’t come from France. They come from Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Many want to come to Britain specifically because they are from countries that were previously part of the British Empire, so they are more comfortable with our country than with other safe countries which are more alien to them.
But the vast majority of refugees/asylum seekers don’t come to the UK. We take a small fraction of those received in Germany and nowhere near as many as France, Italy, Spain, Greece or Sweden.

‘Clearly the majority’? Got any figures on this, or is it just bullshit prejudicial assumption you’ve swallowed whole from your various right wing sources?

 

This is exactly what I meant in my post above. Instead of crucifying the government for taking us for fools, we have the likes of the Sun spinning this as a success of the Rwanda policy.
Also, it has now emerged that the government could easily have got this legislation through parliament before Easter. They chose to delay it so that their press friends could print a load of asylum headlines just before the local elections.

 

And how do we know that Kier's policies aren't divisive and Inept when he won't tell us? Or are we just trusting a man who spins around more that Antony? Being scared of the media reaction Is still a poor excuse no matter how you dress it up, he'll get the same scrutiny sooner or later and doing it when the electorate can't do anything about it is cowardly. I thought truth in politics was important

I think you actually know its wrong, you know it's bad politics and bad for democracy. Hiding from scrutiny and vague policies are not good and you know this.

But you'll excuse basically anything as long as it's coming from the red side.

 

A tragedy obviously.

On a political stance can anybody give me a single reason why someone like this should be given any sort of route into the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68930088

They're playing the system and willing to risk their families lives to do so. I find it so weird.

 

Yes they feckin do.......

 

Except he will take a few weeks holiday in Rwanda then use his £3K to fund his air flight back to the UK, whole carry on is just plain stupid ....

 

No. They come through France. They don’t come from France. Surely you can understand the difference?

 

I’ve already stated that I think it’s a bad situation and doesn’t make for good politics. But all the while our press is dominated by tax exile billionaires and so heavily loaded against anything slightly left of centre-right then Labour cannot get fair coverage and so will continue to be very cautious about what it says. I don’t like that situation. I would much prefer that we had open and fair political debate. But it’s the only way Labour can avoid a concerted campaign of lies, distortions and smears for months ahead of the election.

 

It's just a poor excuse mate. If they have good ideas they should hold up to media scrutiny.

Can't run away from papers that have miniscule reading figures. It's not good leadership.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/may/02/i-am-moving-tycoon-bassim-haidar-non-dom-tax-status-super-rich-exodus

Even the Guardian are pointing out the stupidity of being a high tax country, especially for people who have easy choices about where they reside.