Keir Starmer

[Jacob]

True, and hopefully they have at least a generation out of power - appropriate for the damage done over the last 14 years.

Still, it amazes me that the Tory party continues to throw excrement at a wall to see what sticks; despite earlier excrement clearly being, well, excrement. You think they'd learn.

Tory party dead in the water. Labour are the new conservatives. What we now need is an opposition.

 

[Yorkieguy]

Interesting how the 'Starmer' thread has been reduced to immigration, an issue put firmly on the agenda by the Conservatives when they were in power, elevated by Farage and Reform and the right-wing media, when - let's face it - there are far bigger fish to fry in the UK and the world at the moment. Chattering while Rome burns/ deckchairs while the Titanic sinks etc.
It's a Tory issue, like the EU/ Brexit nonsense - designed to distract from the real issues that face us.

I'm not sure why you say 'the EU/Brexit nonsense' is a Tory issue. Every region of Britain except London, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote to leave, right across the political spectrum.

As to this thread being 'reduced to immigration,' I think most other topics such as freebies, Winter Fuel Allowance, VAT on private school fees have had a good airing, and Starmer has been found seriously wanting in terms, those topics, and in his personal integrity and leadership. The kindest thing I can say about him is that he has delusions of adequacy. (I voted Labour by the way, simply because the local MP was Dame Diana Johnson, the only credible candidate, and Tory's lost my vote from the Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle Farce Partygate, Matt Hancock etc).

Immigration was a 'Tory issue' and now it's a Labour issue - as with every facet of Labour's manifesto, Starmer espoused how the Tory's had trashed every aspect of the economy and couldn't have been more crystal clear on how he was going to bring 'change' and set the country on firm foundations. After election, he repeated those commitments in the King's speech:

Quote:

"My Government will seek to strengthen the border and make streets safer. A Bill will be introduced to modernise the asylum and immigration system, establishing a new Border Security Command and delivering enhanced counter terror powers to tackle organised immigration crime [Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill]. Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen community policing, give the police greater powers to deal with anti social behaviour and strengthen support for victims [Crime and Policing Bill, Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill]".

End quote.

Saying 'strengthen the border' and 'make streets safer' in one sentence conflates two issues and implies that street crime is caused by lack of secure borders. It very clearly is not.

As to it being 'elevated by the right wing media', I think you'll find that it's less well-off people( who, if they read a newspaper at all, it will be a 'red-top tabloid'), who blame the huge rise in the number of asylum seekers placing financial burdens on the NHS, housing, cost of accommodating them and processing their claims etc. In terms of scale, it's becoming and even greater issue on mainland Europe than the UK.

I see little prospect of this Government or any other political party having much impact on stemming the tide of whatever anyone wishes to call those who wash up on our shores, be it 'illegal immigrants', or 'asylum seekers'. My view, for what it's worth is, that asylum claims should be quickly dealt with so that those who are granted refugees status can find work, establish themselves, become productive members of society and pay their way. It's what happens about those who aren't granted asylum that's the big question. Starmer says they'll be 'removed to safe countries'. Where exactly, and when will it start to happen? (A rhetorical question).

My only direct experience of asylum seekers is that for some time, about 100 were housed in what had been an empty Student Halls of Residence 500 Metres from where I live, in a large village in East Yorks, and in a hotel 4 miles away. Despite initial misgivings in the village, they were no trouble whatsoever, and in fact received a lot of support from fair-minded local people. It didn't stop xenophobic racists thugs in Hull city centre 4 miles away from trashing the town centre in the recent wave of violence that erupted across the country. (I doubt that many rioters were Tory voters).

 

[ey_tony]

Not the war taking place on European soil right now, then? Or the war in the Middle East that threatens to get out of hand very quickly?

There will be a significant issue with migration (of whichever sort) in due course as climate change forces massive numbers of people from their lands, and we need to be ready for that. But I do object to the politicisation of migrants, which no doubt is what we've been subject to recently.

But the problem is like it or not, migration, is politicised not necessarily due to racism but simply because of economics and logistics!
I have quite a number of friends of ethnic origin as it happens ranging from Indian, to Kurdish, Turkish, Iraqi and even an ex-North African diplomat and even they think migration is a problem in the UK, so when they criticise it then you know there are issues.

I don't have issues with migrants, it's the numbers and lack of infrastructure to house /service their needs plus if we can't truly identify them then we don't know their motives for those coming here illegally.
I've already pointed out a fact that HIV infections are at a 15 year high in the UK with over 50% of the new cases identified are people who were infected outside of the UK so that's a good enough reason for them to come here to take advantage of our healthcare system. I'm NOT blaming the illegal migrants for the entire rise in HIV, those figures include migrants who come from other parts of the world so it's not just those people arriving on boats illegally.

I also strongly suspect that there will be many with terrorist links who have entered the country under the guise of asylum seeking or simply slipping into the country covertly. There is a limit as to how many groups our security services can identify so they are going to be less able to protect us.

As for climate change good point but just be thankful that we don't have ice sheet advances like those which happened in the last and previous ice ages otherwise much of the Northern Hemisphere would be largely uninhabitable with forced migration on an unimaginable scale with famine and wars for food and land to boot.
The ice sheets could begin to return in the space of one's lifetime and given that we are in an inter-glacial period, it's arguable that it's only global warming which is preventing the ice re-forming and advancing as it has done in past cycles.

Before certain CC activists chime in, I'm not saying we should abandon our reductions in atmospheric and biospheric carbon quantities by any means but if it was possible to re-set the carbon figures to pre-industrial levels then we could definitely induce ice sheet advances with the issues I've described above so we should proceed with caution otherwise we then have the problem of unintended consequences.
The problem is that the politicians in charge are just not educated enough to deal with the longer term issues on the level required.

 

[ey_tony]

Tory party dead in the water. Labour are the new conservatives. What we now need is an opposition.

You don't need an opposition with a government in power headed by Starmer et al! Just give them a free hand and they will do the job themselves.

I'll wager now that the people who voted for Labour are feeling short-changed having fallen for their lies and the orchestrated media hype surrounding the Tories.
I said before the election that if voters think the Tories are bad, just wait until Labour gets in and it hasn't taken long for my prediction to start to show signs of fruition.

 

[Jacob]

You don't need an opposition with a government in power headed by Starmer et al! Just give them a free hand and they will do the job themselves.

I'll wager now that the people who voted for Labour are feeling short-changed having fallen for their lies and the orchestrated media hype surrounding the Tories.
I said before the election that if voters think the Tories are bad, just wait until Labour gets in and it hasn't taken long for my prediction to start to show signs of fruition.

I don't think Labour will be worse than the Tories. In their favour they don't have an ideology, which is what drove the tories round the bend - all that free-market nonsense. Except of course Starmer's very strong commitment to the Israeli extreme right, which has been the only consistent feature of his leadership and is very questionable.
in spite of the hot air about "change" they don't have much direction either; much like the older forms of tory party; all about just doing the minimum to keep things going, low taxation, protecting "the establishment" and property interests.
A creative lefty opposition might nudge them along a bit.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I don't think Labour will be worse than the Tories. In their favour they don't have an ideology ...

 

[sploo]

I'm not sure why you say 'the EU/Brexit nonsense' is a Tory issue. Every region of Britain except London, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote to leave, right across the political spectrum.

It's a Tory issue in that it was the lunatic fringe of the Tory party that pushed it and brought it to the fore (and out-manoeuvred Cameron; who selfishly gambled the country in return for attracting some voters back from UKIP). Prior to that it wasn't really a major issue for the UK public; bar continual "silly EU bureaucrats" type articles in the gutter press.

You don't need an opposition with a government in power headed by Starmer et al! Just give them a free hand and they will do the job themselves.

I'll wager now that the people who voted for Labour are feeling short-changed having fallen for their lies and the orchestrated media hype surrounding the Tories.
I said before the election that if voters think the Tories are bad, just wait until Labour gets in and it hasn't taken long for my prediction to start to show signs of fruition.

Whilst Labour is hardly a panacea that some may have wanted, I really don't think they're anywhere near scraping the bottom of the barrel of some of the behaviour seen during Boris' leadership, or the economic ineptitude displayed by the lettuce Truss. Let's at least wait until they tank the economy, party as your gran is dying, then hide in a fridge.

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes, it is fine. The Ukrainians have been subjected to external military violence. Syrians are being treated - or mistreated - by their own government. If they don't like it, they should do something about it. Not run away, and then complain.

thank you for reply.

So what you are saying is: its ok to flee from external military violence, but its not ok to flee from internal military violence.
Are you saying being bombed by your own government is less painful?


Do you stand by the logic of your argument?

 

[sploo]

They don't have much direction either; much like the older forms of tory party; all about just doing the minimum to keep things going, protecting "the establishment" and property interests, in spite of the hot air about "change".

After 14 years of chaos, and flushing the country down the loo, I'd take that. It's hardly aspirational, but "just don't eff it up further" would be an improvement at least.

EDIT: Sigh. The naughty word filter is so sensitive that it turns the letters "e", "f", and "f", into "buzz".

 

[RobinBHM]

Turn up in somewhere like the states or Australia uninvited and you are not welcomed, they have border control and enforce it. Here we have the RNLI acting as a ferry and seem to welcome them with open arms without asking questions or seeing their documents because they have been thrown overboard.

I am not sure what that has to do with the claim the UK has "open borders"

You say the RNLI "welcomes them with open arms" what would you like the RNLI or Border Force to be doing.........pushing them back so they sink and drown, or would you like them to just sink the boats?


I would politely suggest using the phrase "welcome them with open arms" is a logical fallacy known as appeal to extremes:


Australia has pushed back boats: an extremely dangerous practice that can kill people
Australia also sends those it captures to Nauru, place where appalling levels of suffering are happening

Please tell me Spectric, do you support the suffering and trauma inflicted on asylum seekers in Nauru???





NAURU:

"Nearly nine in 10 children brought from offshore processing on Nauru to Australia were suffering physical health conditions, including malnutrition and dental disease, while almost 80% reported one or more mental health symptoms, new research has revealed.

Nearly half – 45% – had reported suicidal ideation, a suicide attempt, or self-harm.


The deleterious impact of conditions in detention on Nauru has been previously revealed as particularly acute on children: by psychiatrists on the island who said conditions were “inherently toxic” and akin to “torture”; by Médecins Sans Frontières who reported mental health on the island was in “crisis” and amongst the worst the organisation had seen anywhere in the world; and through public revelations like the Nauru Files, more than 2,100 incident reports which revealed systemic sexual and physical abuse of children and widespread self-harm and suicide attempts."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...act of conditions,was in “crisis” and amongst

 

[Chris152]

It's a Tory issue in that it was the lunatic fringe of the Tory party that pushed it and brought it to the fore (and out-manoeuvred Cameron; who selfishly gambled the country in return for attracting some voters back from UKIP). Prior to that it wasn't really a major issue for the UK public; bar continual "silly EU bureaucrats" type articles in the gutter press.

Sums it up nicely - it was about keeping the tory party together; once it was on the agenda, the misinformation started and we ended up where we are.

 

[RobinBHM]

For women, rather the opposite. Because they can use sexual attraction - whether promissed or performed - to gain agency over people smugglers. Reports - unconfirmed - are that women starting the trek from Africa or the Near East towards Europe frequently take a long-term contraceptive before they start – with that in mind.

you are really scaring me now, your cognitive dissonance is taking you down a very dark road

Please take a bit of time to think about what you are saying, theres plenty of evidence, please research it

it is widely known that female refugees that take these journeys are subjected to sexual abuse and rape...........are you seriously suggesting youve never read about that?


“Women and girls who risk sexual violence as they flee their home countries are getting contraceptive injections as a precautionary measure. For someone to know that they are at such risk of sexual violence, and yet they are determined to continue on that journey.
https://www.hhri.org/news/no-5-2017-rape-within-the-migration-journey/

"A recent field assessment of risks for refugee and migrant women and girls identified instances of sexual and gender-based violence, including early and forced marriage, transactional sex, domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment and physical assault in the country of origin and during the journey to Europe."
https://fra.europa.eu/en/content/th...ld assessment of,during the journey to Europe.

 

[sploo]

...would you like the RNLI or Border Force to be doing.........pushing them back so they sink and drown, or would you like them to just sink the boats?

Tragically there are plenty in the UK who openly advocate for that.

I struggle to get my head around the mindset that would actively attempt to end the life of a person in need; even if that person were someone you didn't like or didn't want near you. Worse; people vote for those who advocate this approach - blind to the reality that if someone were willing to do this to people weaker than them there's zero reason they wouldn't do it to you (the voter) if they ever decided you were now the enemy.

 

[RobinBHM]

Whilst Labour is hardly a panacea that some may have wanted

Labour only had a very narrow path to victory

the UK has been subjected to populism for the last 5+ years, the last administration governed by propaganda, gaslighting, lies...........its hard to win over a population subjected to that 24/7

Jeremy Hunt was busy telling us how the Tory party are the party of low taxes, whilst conveniently overlooking the fact since 2019 they have put £80b of tax rises in place. To top it all off Jeremy Hunt tried bribing the electorate with a 2% vut in NI which wasnt funded leaving a £22b black holes

the last govt salted the earth before they left, so a very difficult economic situation was made even worse

 

[RobinBHM]

Tragically there are plenty in the UK who openly advocate for that.

I struggle to get my head around the mindset that would actively attempt to end the life of a person in need; even if that person were someone you didn't like or didn't want near you. Worse; people vote for those who advocate this approach - blind to the reality that if someone were willing to do this to people weaker than them there's zero reason they wouldn't do it to you (the voter) if they ever decided you were now the enemy.

Sadly this is the result of the public being subjected to constant inflammatory language by our leaders and media

Once people are dehumanised and seen as numbers, its becomes easy to consider them no better than rats

there are quite a few asylum seekers I see around my village when out walking the dog, they seem fine to me, just normal people they say hello and smile. We have some that have got involved with the parish church, on saturday I saw 3 of them busy weeding and cleaning in the church yard...........but hey they are just economic migrants that are here to laze about and live in luxury right?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sums it up nicely - it was about keeping the tory party together; once it was on the agenda, the misinformation started and we ended up where we are.

I decided after studying The Treaty of Rome for O level in 1970 that I didn't wish to join the EEC (let alone the EU - we should have had the referendum at Maastricht), as it was designed to be a political union. I assume T. o. R was "misinformation"? Most people who voted for leaving the EU had decided long before the referendum.

 

[Jacob]

Somehow the whole conversation around immigration needs to be changed.
First to recognise that they are highly motivated and not risk averse (or they wouldn't be here), that they are looking to improve their lives and hoping for work, that they are escaping from conditions which are often awful, that it's a humanitarian issue, that many of them bring valuable skills...and so on.
Second to ask how best this could be used to the mutual advantage of all of us.
Answer to this is obvious really - get the buggers into work, and/or training/education, with all the support they need. This would empower them to contribute to society if they stayed, or to move on if they choose, even to return to their own country with more power and influence than when they left.
A bit of positive and civilised thinking and we could all gain by it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Positive thinking is all it is.

 

[Chris152]

Most people who voted for leaving the EU had decided long before the referendum.

How do you know that, Phil?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Because I speak to a lot of peopl

edit OK, the wrong people.