Forum menu
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
Any political party that hopes to form a govt in the near future will have to rely on the votes of a hand full of constituencies across the midlands and the M62 corridor. 40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces. 3 out of every 10 voters are possibly going to the polls with that in mind, and all you can do is hope that some of the things you've said cut through to them. That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
And it's hardly a beauty contest, it's in fact quite ugly
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats
He also has to retain other seats which his current approach of blaming immigrants and ignoring the actual issues is unlikely to appeal to.
It isnt even going to work for those seats since he is engaging in an unwinnable battle. Since immigration isnt close to being the primary factor "solving" it simply cant work. People will still see the same problems and since they have been told its immigrants to blame will conclude any statistics showing that the numbers have dropped will be wrong.
not a ideological purity test.
And "oven ready deal", "get brexit done". Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans I was supposed to repeat religiously.
Ironically the problem is Starmer and co are extremely ideological pure which leaves them floundering around searching for solutions and buying into the hard right populism.
Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans
I'm not racist but... seems to be the slogan the starmerbots now think is a winning argument.
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
Absolutely this. All it does is reinforce the wrong idea within the population.
"Smash the Gangs" was never going to achieve anything because it was aimed unfairly at a small proportion of immigration numbers.
It isn't as though he'll be struggling to push a fair policy through Parliament
40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces
Are those the places where 50% of the population is either an immigrant or has an immigration background ? Black humour apart, I think I'd rather appeal to the 60% and work on convincing the 40% that their immigrant neighbours haven't caused "chaos" and that immigration during the last Conservative government wasn't a "squalid chapter".
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
Exactly, which is why being a moderate politically is not the clever-ass move some believe it is.
Moderate beliefs exist to remove the left and give the right the space it needs. Hence 3 right-wing options.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats.
His problem will always be that he'll never out-Farage Farage - he needed to seize the narrative and talk about how we benefit from migration, but he chose not to. Smash the gangs, by all means, but don't also demonise the people they exploit.
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
If immigration was controlled and at a moderate level it would be fine - you could realistically plan in advance so you had enough skills to build the houses, the infrastructure and provide the additional services. Immigrants themselves would be part of the solution and most people would be fine with it
I just noticed this: It is controlled immigration - when people are here on visas, that's controlled.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem", the country can live with it, a tiny part of the misery in the world it can absorb. What is a major problem is 40% of the British population depressed about their financial situation. Mimicking Farage's blaming of the woes of the 40% on the 0.005% will see Starmer out of office and the first opportunity to improve things for the many in 14 years wasted.
FFS do something Starmer you idiot, because barrister or not you're an idiot giving us abundant proof every time you speak. When he was elected I was mildly hopeful, not hopeful enough to vote for him but hopeful. I now despair of him.
(and a lot of money for some property owners).
Not just property holders. Some of the biggest profiteers are those sitting between the government and the hotels etc.
In theory they are capped to 5% profit but that, of course, allows for rather substantial salaries to be paid out.
It also doesnt seem to be ideal for incentivising those companies to get the country a good deal.
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem"
It's a major problem for the people involved. They are being fleeced for money by criminals and given false promises, and being put in danger on unsuitable boats. I have no problem with accepting refugees in the UK, indeed I am happy for the UK to do this.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Given the state of the countires they've left and the journey's they've endured the 'gangs' Starmer can do anything about are tiny part of the problem. The 'gangs' operate well out of reach of Starmer. The man is dreaming again; consider the jouneys the people from south of the Sahara have endured, objectively the final Channel crossing is one of the least risky parts, and where there's a will there's a way. The obvious answer isn't "smash the gangs" it's an agreement with the EU on a quota of refugees and a system that is sufficiently attractive that refugees use it rather than taking a chance on an illegal crossing.
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
Appointed KC automatically when she was made Attorney General, she didn't get it on merit.
So, do we think last week's Farage-esque xenophobia was some red meat thrown to the Brexity types in advance of this week's announcements?
Pitch rolling was the in vogue phrase during Johnson's so-called leadership, I believe.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Give me some details of this alleged deal, or will it be another memorandum of understanding like our non-enforceable trade agreement with the US?
Things that make me mad- the BBC's decision to lead every story on this with " making it easier to get through airport queues". No mention of the loss of hundreds of billions of pounds in trade and subsequent loss in taxes to the treasury. Is that how you sell it to the Brexit eff-wits? No queues at the airpot in Benidorm? Jeez.
only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Very confusing post. It stands to reason that any trade deal we do with the EU will not be as good as being a member, otherwise there's no advantage to being a member. I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Very confusing post. It stands to reason that any trade deal we do with the EU will not be as good as being a member, otherwise there's no advantage to being a member. I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
Ah, but they need us more than we need them. Allegedly.
A worthwhile step in re-integrating into the EU is a customs union, everything proposed is just a veneer for political show, it is Trumpesque politics, selling a deal that isn't really the sum of sweet FA.
Everything Starmer does is on the wrong side of the line, trying to sneak up on the line to the minimal change that can be sold as acceptable. He is an absolute political coward offering zero leadership and even less credibility.
He is an absolute political coward offering zero leadership and even less credibility.
Think he's probably the opposite to a coward. In the current climate it would be easier for him to be a radical, but that's not his job. He's an establishment politician and his primary job is to keep everything the same no matter how much it damages him politically.
Nice (from where I'm sitting) - plenty of fish, less hassle at customs (believe that when I experience it), cheap labour in European holiday resorts that are suffereing a labour shortage and the Daily Mail is apoplectic. What's not to like?
MSP - what you want and what is going to happen are mutually exclusive. This is a great step towards improving what has been a shitshow for years. It's it where we want it to end up? No, but that isn't reality right now
the minimal change that can be sold as acceptable
Don't reject the offer of a walking stick because no one is offering to stitch your leg back on (which you cut off yourself while in K-hole).
Don't reject the offer of a walking stick because no one is offering to stitch your leg back on (which you cut off yourself while in K-hole).
This.
bollocks
If you want an analogy, he is the surgeon who's job is to stitch your leg back on, but he wants to play golf and have his photo taken so he is offering a walking stick instead.
He is choosing this path, he has a massive majority (oh how the stamerbots crowed about that) but he is too cowardly and too beholden to the oligarchs to use it for the public good.
You seem angry, are you ok?
You seem angry, are you ok?
Ah thought so, your just trying to wind people up, well done you must be very pleased with yourself.
Nah only in that last comment. My previous one was 100% truthful and actually what I think. The comment was only partly cheeky though.
People are getting far too worked up over this in general to an unhealthy degree in some cases
I don't remember anyone claiming we'd have a better trade deal with the EU after leaving.
“Everything will get much cheaper – absolutely."
Nigel Farage
Note he didn't say 'everything apart from trade with the EU' he said "everything...absolutley".
“Everything will get much cheaper – absolutely."
Well obviously he was lying. But even if he believed it, we can assume he did so because he (wrongly, obvs) assumed that goods from outside the EU would replace EU goods and drive prices down. Obviously though leaving the EU meant that prices on EU goods would go up, I don't think anyone thought otherwise.
In any case, I don't think the price of goods was a major driver in the vote to leave. As discussed a million times before, leaving the EU was a result of a combination of misplaced patriotism/jingoism and growing resentment of the neo-liberal establishment and economic status quo of which the EU was a major driver.
I would see this as what it is - real progress in a relationship ruined by people who can only see their own interests and are unable to operate in the reality of having to work at compromise and solution.
It will take a long time and there are big risks from bad actors but nothing will make them go away , can only smother them in reality.
The EU deal is symbolic as much as anything - it signals a change of mood and (hopefully) a direction for further closer cooperation
Politically it flushes out the Tories/Badenoch who have to match Reform on rhetoric but which is speaking to a minority. This gives the Govt a lot of room to manoeuvre going forward
It's certainly a step in the right direction.
It will be a long and grueling process to Undo the damage caused by the people who voted for brexit.
I suppose it's inevitable to at least end up back in the CU and SM, purely because it's just not financially viable not to.
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the previous situation didn't make sense*, which is why people voted to leave.
People aren't gullible, they know when they're suffering financially better than politicians do because they can feel it in their pockets. What they might not fully understand is why but that's the politicians job to analyse and resolve.
*the current situation isn't any better obvs
Not going down well with the fishing community in Scotland. I dare say many of them were brexiteers but I have a certain amount of sympathy for some of them.
The provisions for relaxing animal product exports are very welcome, UK exports of poultry and other meat has halved since Brexit, and my job touches on animal products (for science) and the increase in red tape has been nuts.
In the last month Starmer has managed some sort of trade deals with >1/4 of the worlds population; EU, USA, India, economy is looking more resilient than predicted- employer NI rise has seen mass layoffs, inflation still low, energy bills set to fall, fingers crossed economy is going to keep growing.
meanwhile brexiteers in a pickle
these kind of deals are exactly what brexit was supposed to be about, but because its starmer/ EU they have to hate on it
on every aspect Brexit failed to deliver- less immigration, better NHS, better economy, less inequality etc etc
Making this an annual summit was quite canny too
Starmer fixing the Brexit mess could help neutralise Farage more than pointlessly trying to outflank him on immigration ever could
The economics of the current situation simply don't make sense - they never did, but people are gullible.
The economics of the previous situation didn't make sense*, which is why people voted to leave.
People aren't gullible, they know when they're suffering financially better than politicians do because they can feel it in their pockets. What they might not fully understand is why but that's the politicians job to analyse and resolve.
*the current situation isn't any better obvs
Gullible or just plain nasty.
You'd have to be one of the two... Often a bit of both, to arrive at the conclusion the 52% did.