Of course they could commit to stopping the use quicklybut they are to scared of tbe backlash to do so
Direct quote from that Kinnock interview.
"We will do so as quickly as possible to get people out of hotels and off barges and out of the military camps"
How much more quickly than 'as quickly as possible' does it have to be? You accuse me of having one eye closed, you're absolutely blind to the ****ing words in front of you (and the video's got sound so you're ****ing deaf as well)
Well of course it is a selective quote, do you expect random quotes which don’t in anyway illustrate the point I am making?
And I have no idea what you mean by saying play the ball not the man, what man?
You know what i mean in both points, but in case not.
1/ you have deliberately left off the bit that clarifies how long they will be using barges, etc for to create a quote that says they are keeping them and making it sound like that's 'in perpetuity'.
2/ I said before, I know this is not the labour and the policies that you want, but in this case Kinnock (and Cooper's) responses are fair, accurate, and (proof will be in the pudding) truthful. But you won't accept it because nothing Labour do is going to be right for you now.
**** knows why I'm even debating this, it's pointless with some posters.
you have deliberately left off the bit that clarifies how long they will be using barges, etc for to create a quote that says they are keeping them and making it sound like that’s ‘in perpetuity’.
I am fully aware that it isn't 'in perpetuity', I have repeatedly said that the Bibby Stockholm is designed to provide temporary accommodation.
What I want to know is why the next Labour government is keeping it as temporary accommodation. If they can't house 500 asylum seekers fairly quickly how are they going to manage when more than that arrive in a single day - are they just going to let them sleep rough?
But you won’t accept it because nothing Labour do is going to be right for you now.
First of all you do realise that supporting the Labour Party isn't a prerequisite for posting on STW, don't you?
And secondly I am perfectly happy to support the Labour Party if I agree with their policies. An example of that is my huge support for Sir Keir Starmer's 10 pledges. I also very much support Labour's current stance on Europe.
Edit: Most of Labour's policies appear to be watered down Tory policies, including now barges for asylum seekers. I have never been a Tory supporter.
Vile comments by anderson and a refusal by alex chalk – justice minister – to criticise or condemn anderson and/or his comments.
consistent 20pt deficit in the polls, going full-BNP is all theyve got
sadly the racism & hatred this stirs up will linger long after these clowns are out of office
I find labour's continual pandering to racists abhorrent.
They could have condemned this much more strongly and made a much stronger pledge to get rid of it
this is how you comdemn the use of prisonhulks
https://twitter.com/SusaninLangside/status/1688503854566899712?s=20
Not this mealy mouthed nonsense
Controversial barges and military camps will still be used temporarily to house asylum seekers if Labour wins the next election, a member of Keir Starmer’s frontbench has said.
The shadow immigration minister, Stephen Kinnock, said the idea made him “deeply unhappy” as it was the last thing the party wanted to do. But he said Labour would have “no choice but to deal with the mess we inherit”.
Kinnock told Sky News on Sunday: “Over the last 13 years, the Tory government has destroyed our asylum system. We’ll inherit a mess if we are privileged to win the next election.”
When pressed if that meant Labour would continue to use the barges to house asylum seekers, Kinnock said: “The reality is, on day one we will have to deal with the we have and the shambolic mess they have left us. We’ll be left with no choice but to deal with the mess we inherit.”
He told BBC Breakfast that he was confident a Labour government could get on top of the backlog within six months.
The shadow minister refused to give a timeline on when a Labour government would stop using the barges and bring down the backlog from a record high of more than 172,000 cases.
And that is from the labour supporting Grauniad
Kinnock could have easily made a much stronger condemation and pledged to get rid of them on a short timescale
the idea that these 500 possible beds are critical when tens of thousands are being housed and hundreds arrive daily is sheer nonsense. they are just running scared of the tory press and racist voters. Its pathetic
Crikey, it was send them to Rwanda...
...then 'F*off back to France'...
..and now it's send them to Scotland!
It would be funny if the UK government wasn't so utterly evil, & burning public money all the way too.
A quick comic I knocked up...
..and now it’s send them to Scotland!
It was supposed to be Portland, Edinburgh and Liverpool for the first barges.
Both Edinburgh and Liverpool declined the honour.
On a side note hadnt noticed the original posters name.
I think its a rather appropriate subheading.
The charge that Keir Starmer is complicit in this burglary of Britishness has evolved from snide insinuation to an explicit campaign message. Labour and criminal gangs are “on the same side”, Sunak has alleged. Ministers are incapable of describing the operation of their own policy without reference to the opposition’s softness in refusing to endorse it.
This is not some campaign accoutrement to promote Conservative policy. It is the entirety of the government agenda. There is no functional policy beyond a performance of repelling invaders and the manufacture of suspicion that Starmer would welcome them ashore. This technique is not restricted to the Home Office. Conservative environmental policy has been stripped down to the idea that Labour is the puppet of eco-fanatics,
From the grauniad
Kinnock just walked straight into this as Starmer has done on other topics. They should be confronting and repudiating not validiating by timidity and weasel words
Crikey, it was send them to Rwanda…
…then ‘F*off back to France’…
..and now it’s send them to Scotland!
It would be funny if the UK government wasn’t so utterly evil, & burning public money all the way too.
You left out the new tabloid-bait idea: 'Send them to Ascension Island'. A mid-Atlantic rock where virtually every single thing has to be flown thousands of miles at great expense. Sounds like an efficient use of public money.
This is a pretty prescient piece in todays Independent, noting that as the Tory membership and MPs are caught in the grip of ever more unhinged far right fervour, all these batshit crazy ‘ideas’ are simply Cruella positioning herself to fight Kimi Badenoch for the leadership of what’s left of the Tory party after the electoral wipeout that awaits them. Ironic that the two candidates to lead what will essentially be the National Front are both women of colour
Suella Braverman enjoys attacking lawyers – but even home secretaries can’t make justice illegal
Oooh, Liberal boy has got his crayons out again. 😀
Sounds like an efficient use of public money.
The Daily Mail reports that it would allegedly cost £1M per asylum seeker to send them to Ascension Island :
When Priti Patel was Home Secretary she pinched the idea of sending asylum seekers to remote islands from the Australians, she even asked a former Australian Foreign Minister to advise her:
The problem for the UK is that the nearest remote island is so far away, but you can see the attraction:
Offshore detention is designed to be so brutal that asylum seekers are forced into despair and agree to go back home to whatever they have fled. Twelve refugees and asylum seekers have died there.
Dumping people in such remote locations also means denying them proper legal support, medical services and contact with the Australian public. Nauru is 3000 kilometres from the Australian mainland, while Manus Island lies 300 kilometres north of the main island of Papua New Guinea.
https://refugeeaction.org.au/?page_id=4528
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66438422
That sound is Churchill spinning in his grave. If Labour have any sense they'll highlight the creation of the Council of Europe (and as a result the ECHR) as one of the Tories greatest legacies.
To be fair they can campaign to do whatever the hell they like. Their increasingly batshit crazy ‘ideas’ and ‘solutions’ play very well to similarly batshit crazy bigots and racists - let’s call them the Lee Anderson vote - but the majority of the electorate recognise them as batshit crazy
None of this is ever going to be enacted, because it was never intended to be. This is just the two-bald-men-fighting-over-a-comb that will be the next Tory party leadership campaign to decide which batshit crazy loon gets to lead them into far right oblivion
Labour should/must do and say much more to take control of the narrative which is being driven by the likes of anderson and jenrick following braverman's directions.
A clear policy - clearly, confidently and loudly articulated - would be a start for Labour.
I agree Frank
But we have Ernie from the left defending the stance on Brexiit and trying to shut down all discussion even tho its central to a lot of political positions and Binners from the right doing the same when any criticism of the labour positions is mooted.
Labours mealy mouthed stance driven by their fears of being labelled soft on whatever hardline policy is mooted simply leads them to validate the tory policies by refusing to unequivocally repudiate them
Labour should/must do and say much more to take control of the narrative which is being driven by the likes of anderson and jenrick following braverman’s directions.
A clear policy – clearly, confidently and loudly articulated – would be a start for Labour.
I agree, although the point made earlier here and elsewhere that the rightwing press selectively misquote what they say is a thing they haven't grasped. They have to be VERY clear, VERY concise and VERY loud.
But we have Ernie from the left defending the stance on Brexiit and trying to shut down all discussion
What on earth are you talking about? 😆
I haven't defended any stance on brexit, and you can talk about whatever you want to talk about - I am not in a position to "shut down all discussion", I can't even post hilarious road signs!
Labour should/must do and say much more to take control of the narrative
It is deeply ironic that Labour have a consistent lead of about 20% over the Tories and yet it is still the Tories that are dictating the narrative.
You would expect the Tories to start embracing Labour policies rather than what is actually happening - Labour is embracing Tory policies which they had previously condemned.
To paraphrase Napoleon: never interrupt you’re enemy while they’re in the process of behaving increasingly batshit crazy
Ernie:
And secondly I am perfectly happy to support the Labour Party if I agree with their policies. An example of that is my huge support for Sir Keir Starmer’s 10 pledges. I also very much support Labour’s current stance on Europe.
And we all see you attempting to shut down any discussion
It is deeply ironic that Labour have a consistent lead of about 20% over the Tories and yet it is still the Tories that are dictating the narrative.
Labour really don't want to even try and do anything that may reduce their lead, give tory MPS and media something to attack them on. You saw the Labour are anti motorist crap that came out after the mess that was Uxbridge didn't you.
Not sure what any of this has to do with Braverman though.
To paraphrase Napoleon: never interrupt you’re enemy while they’re in the process of behaving increasingly batshit crazy
And look how that turned out - he ended up being captured by his enemies and spent the rest of his life a prisoner.
On a remote island.
Killed by his wallpaper.
And we all see you attempting to shut down any discussion
I said that I support Labour's stance on Europe, I didn't "defend" it, I avoid getting into discussions about EU membership. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.
What I will continue to do though is to challenge your nonsense that everything is to do with brexit.
Suella Braverman isn't putting asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm, which is what we are currently discussing, because of brexit. Both Germany and the Netherlands have used the Bibby Stockholm to house asylum seekers, both were full members of the EU when they did so.
One way to kill 2 birds with 1 stone:
when people land/ get rescued from “the boats” offer them 2 choices-
wait around in hotels/barges/military basis for months/years to be processed with little money or
be given automatic citizenship & access to jobs/benefits on the condition you get placed wherever we say. Anyone taking this option gets sent to the Falklands, thereby boosting the presence of British citizens. Could even employ them as a defence force.
Anyone taking this option gets sent to the Falklands
I have been to both Rwanda and the Falklands.
I would rather go back to Rwanda.
I have been to both Rwanda and the Falklands.
I would rather go back to Rwanda.
Shame, a colleague has just accepted a 2 year secondment to the Falklands!
I see the " we might have to leave the ECHR" has been proposed again. One thing they seem to forget is that the ECHR is incorporated into the Scotland act that set up Holyrood and I believe is similarly enshrined in Welsh law. Certainly in Scotland the only way they could stop it applying is to close holyrood completely. Otherwise the ECHR would still apply north of the border.
Leaving the EHCR is like Rwanda/Ascension Island and the rest of their unworkable nonsense! It won’t survive first contact with reality
It was never intended to be a genuine policy, just the opposite of virtue-signalling to shore up their core voter base of racist simpletons who believe everything they read in the Daily Mail
This whole thing is just noise to take up bandwidth in what laughably passes as political analysis in our press and get everyone arguing about an issue that could be resolved by processing applications in a timely fashion. It's working.
Suella Braverman isn’t putting asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm, which is what we are currently discussing, because of brexit
When we were part of the EU the French were obliged to accept refugees from us under the Dublin agreement.
So you are saying that the increase asylum applications to the UK is due to brexit. Irrespective of that it doesn't dictate how they should be housed.
I know that Suella Braverman claims that she has no choice but to use barges, and now Labour are making similar claims, but I don't think that is actually true.
So you are saying that the increase asylum applications to the UK is due to brexit.
i didn't say any such thing. you claimed the current situation wasn't anything to do with brexit. we had the right to return immigrants to a 'first place of safety' under the agreements we were signatory to as part of our EU membership.
Further info and stats on the Dublin arrangements here, for those who may be interested. The actual number of transfers were quite low.
How did it affect asylum claims in the
UK?
For many years the number of people transferred out of the UK under
the Regulation was greater than the number of people sent to the UK.
Since 2016, the opposite has been the case: the UK received more
people than it successfully transferred to other participating states. Most
transfers to the UK were due to the family reunion articles.
Recent immigration statistics (July 2020) give figures for incoming and
outgoing transfer requests in 2019:
• The UK received 2,236 requests from EU member states to accept
transfers of individuals to the UK, and 714 transfers took place.
The majority of these (496) were from Greece.
• The UK made 3,259 transfer requests to EU member states, and
263 transfers took place. 40% (104) went to Germany and 20%
(53) went to France.
you claimed the current situation wasn’t anything to do with brexit.
I said that housing asylum seekers on barges instead of hotels has nothing to do with brexit.
Both Germany and the Netherlands housed asylum seekers on barges despite not leaving the EU.
I really dont see what is wrong with housing people on barges whilst their claims are processed. Those in genuine fear for their safety are safe, fed and accommodated. Those who are economic migrants are then in a place of safety and if their claims are unfounded at least we know where they are so they can be deported
Oh come on. Its all a part of the hostile environment - the idea being to make people feel so unwelcome or to put them in fear so they do not go forward with their legitimate claims. The vast majority are found to be legitimate
Its also a dog whistle to their hard right supporters. 500 people max out of many tens of thousands is insignificant. its also more expensive than using hotels and much more expensive than actually processing claims
its using vulnerable people as political pawns
chrismac - IF that's what you really believe, you are deluded.
I really dont see what is wrong with housing people on barges whilst their claims are processed.
I have lived on similar things for up to 6 weeks at a time.
However, I was getting paid and was busy and motivated to be there.
I also know how to keep my head straight in that environment, how to keep my own space and how to give others space.
A bunch of young men, who have never lived like that before, bored with nothing to do, nowhere to go, it will quickly turn into a pretty toxic environment.
I don't think it's inherently dangerous but it's it will be grim and is costing more than luxury apartments.
I really dont see what is wrong with housing people on barges whilst their claims are processed. Those in genuine fear for their safety are safe, fed and accommodated. Those who are economic migrants are then in a place of safety and if their claims are unfounded at least we know where they are so they can be deported
I think, in very simple terms, the concept for temporary housing is not fundamentally flawed. Its just almost every aspect of how they are doing it that is flawed:
- it is horrendously expensive.
- it actually accommodates hundreds of people at best but there are tens of thousands of applicants.
- the backlog of applications and inefficiency in the process means this isn't some holding centre for a few weeks whilst the paperwork is done but likely to take many months or years.
- this is an adult male only facility, that will neither be good for building a community or diffusing tensions when they inevitably arise.
- effectively its not far off being a prison; institutionalizing genuine asylum seekers because our systems are crap is pretty evil.
- its intended to be uninviting to put people off coming, and send a message to voters that refugees don't come here and get treated better than locals.
<p>I agree its no substitute for getting on an processing claims in a timely manner. That is almost certainly the best solution. However we aren’t in that position.</p><p>Fundamentally I dont see the problem with having claimants held in controlled places and provided for than left to fend for themselves somewhere in the community relying on the benefit system. What happens when claims are completed and rejected? Let’s face it those in that position are hardly likely to surrender to immigration for deportation and those with genuine claims are safe and protected from the persecution they are escaping from.</p><p> </p><p>Yes this should be temporary and the government should get its act together to process claims in a timely manner</p>
