Suella! Braverman!

Selective quoting there:

Well of course it is a selective quote, do you expect random quotes which don’t in anyway illustrate the point I am making?

Yes I know Labour are saying that they see barges only a temporary solution, I am fairly sure that the Tories are saying the same thing too. The Bibby Stockholm was built specifically as a solution to the need for temporary accommodation, that is precisely what it been used for in the past.

And I have no idea what you mean by saying play the ball not the man, what man?

I am simply pointing that Labour have adopted a Tory policy which they have previously suggested they were opposed to, I am not even giving my opinion concerning whether I think it is a particularly good or bad policy.

It is a perfectly valid point to make, irrespective of whether you believe it is the correct tactic, and Sky News make precisely that point in the article that I linked:

As we saw from the fallout from Sir Keir Starmer’s refusal to scrap the two child benefit cap – a policy members of his own shadow cabinet have called “heinous” – Labour’s biggest challenge will be justifying keeping policies they have previously railed against.

But how long can they use that line for?

At some point the public will begin to hold them accountable for the nation’s woes, irrespective of the Conservative Party’s legacy.

My main criticism is the excuse that Labour give, ie that abandoning the Tory policy would be particularly difficult. They might not do it the day after winning a general election, and no one is suggesting that should, but the maximum number of people that the Bibby Stockholm can hold is 500, if a Labour government can’t manage to house that many asylum seekers fairly quickly how are they going to manage to cope when more than 500 arrive in a single day?

The asylum backlog as at 31 Dec 2022 was around 132,000 applications covering about 161,000 people.

Using an accommodation barge with capacity of c500 is serving to deflect from the gov’s piss poor performance in managing and efficiently processing the backlog.

The average time for an application to receive an initial decision in 2021 was 20 months.

A long read from the Migration Observatory gets into detail – here’s the link if anyone is interested https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/#

I’m sure the government would still be committed to paying out the eye-watering sums in the barge contract, regardless of whether it was actually occupied or not. So they may as well be used in some fashion, even though it might be more satisfying to see them filled with Britain Firsters, towed out to sea and sunk.

Imagine if that cash had been invested in actually speeding up the claim resolution process…

Lee Anderson tells asylum seekers to ‘f*** off back to France’ if they don’t like barges
Senior Tories share fury as 20 migrants granted last-minute reprieve following legal challenges

Charming.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lee-anderson-asylum-seekers-bibby-barge-b2389327.html

Vile comments by anderson and a refusal by alex chalk – justice minister – to criticise or condemn anderson and/or his comments.

The likes of 30p Lee and Gullis are the raw, living embodiment of what used to be the Tory party but is now just a nasty English Nationalist mob.

They’re absolutely despicable, but on the other hand this is the death rattle of a morally and ideologically bankrupt government that knows for sure that not only is it finished, it’s going to be absolutely wiped out!

All they’ve got left is to parade their vile nastiness to other knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. It’s absolutely desperate that they think this kind of shit is going to save them from electoral oblivion.

When you’ve sunk to this level, with the actual deputy chairman of the party using that kind of football-hooligan-esque language and with it being endorsed by those at the very top, who exactly are you trying to appeal too other than real hardcore bigots and racists? Well that isn’t going to win you an election, as thankfully most people just really aren’t that unpleasant

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 **** words in front of you (and the video’s got sound so you’re **** 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

The UK government wants @GlasgowCC to give consent to an asylum barge being sited in the city. We will not give it. Glasgow’s communities are proud to be beacons of support and integration for asylum seekers & refugees. This is the polar opposite of that https://t.co/cOyRsowyaD

— Susan Aitken (@SusaninLangside) August 7, 2023

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

And TJ… FFS….

😉

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 :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12384309/The-million-pound-migrants-Ex-Cabinet-minister-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-says-sending-asylum-seekers-Ascension-Island-cost-1m-EACH.html

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:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/18/deeply-concerning-british-government-picks-alexander-downer-to-review-uks-border-force

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.

Manus and Nauru

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