Westminster Politics

Pexbo said:
Purely hypothetical scenario:

Labour: 41%(% of seats, 51 for a majority)
Corbyn FC: 10%
Tories 10%

(Greens and Lib Dems make 9% combined)

What does Starmer do?
Click to expand...

Probably try to work some of the 30% of MPs not affiliated to form a majority?

If it came down to him doing a deal with some theoretical left-wing party (Corbyn led or otherwise) or a rump Tory party, then he'd definatley be doing deals with the Tory remnants. Far closer to his and Reeves vision of Britian than those equality marxists.
 
Pexbo said:
Purely hypothetical scenario:

Labour: 41%(% of seats, 51 for a majority)
Corbyn FC: 10%
Tories 10%

(Greens and Lib Dems make 9% combined)

What does Starmer do?
Click to expand...
Lab/Lib/Green/SNP coalition.
 
Mart1974 said:
Lab/Lib/Green/SNP coalition.
Click to expand...
Yeah point of the question was to see whether he’d choose a left or right coalition. For what it’s worth, a coalition like that would last about 6 weeks when the SNP demand indyref 2
 
Tibs said:
Unless JC starts a party or teams up with the greens...only then will I vote
Click to expand...

I don't post much now, but feck yeah! JC all the way. Me and about over a million Muslim voters will be putting an X for him at the polls. I'm sure there will be millions of non-Muslims too.
 
TheGame said:
This cretin still thinks it’s all about the boats :wenger: :wenger:
Click to expand...


He's 'my' MP, can't wait to start campaigning and get him booted out!

He continually goes on about, how when he goes door-to-door (clearly keeps missing me), all he gets back is shit about the boats - it really isn't! It's all about GPs / A&E waits, dentistry, cost-of-living. Boats are far off in the distance!

To be fair though I'm happy for them to keep thinking this, it'll ensure they get wiped out for misjudging the public, based on what Murdoch etc want to push.
 
TheGame said:
This cretin still thinks it’s all about the boats :wenger: :wenger:
Click to expand...


They are obsessed with the boats issue.
Even if they can somehow get the Rwanda policy working, I doubt it will have more than a second order effect.

But I don't believe that it is going to be easy for Labour and don't believe the polls.
It is going to be a very dirty campaign by the Tories and their media mates.
 
Buster15 said:
They are obsessed with the boats issue.
Even if they can somehow get the Rwanda policy working, I doubt it will have more than a second order effect.

But I don't believe that it is going to be easy for Labour and don't believe the polls.
It is going to be a very dirty campaign by the Tories and their media mates.
Click to expand...
Because its the only 'policy' the can cling onto as a soundbite going into the election.

Before it was 'Get Brexit Done' - well its done now, and its been an unmitigated disaster.

Party of the economy and responsible spending? Not after Liz Truss did a speedrun of tanking the economy, and the fact our growth forecast has been amongst the weakest of developed nations. And I haven't even gone into the cronyism culture under the tories, rewarding donors with fraudulent government contracts, etc.

Party of law and order? Crime has gone up, and policing has faced crippling cuts.

Rwanda? Turns out they have no legal basis, and this is after wasting millions on the initiative.

The only thing they have left is propagating this culture war nonsense and 'small boats', hoping that's enough to galvanise their base as a desperate hail Mary. They're also dangling some tax cut proposals lately (which will likely be funded by more cuts) and hope their mates in the media will do a hatchet job on Starmer, but unfortunately Starmer is enough of a Tory-lite acolyte for them to get on board with him.

They're very much at the end game and they know it, hence the rush of Tory MPs who've decided to cowardly bow out at the end of this parliamentary cycle.
 
Buster15 said:
They are obsessed with the boats issue.
Even if they can somehow get the Rwanda policy working, I doubt it will have more than a second order effect.

But I don't believe that it is going to be easy for Labour and don't believe the polls.
It is going to be a very dirty campaign by the Tories and their media mates.
Click to expand...
They have nothing else to run on. The Tories are facing an ideological crisis.
 
Adisa said:
I find that incredible, considering the suffering.
Click to expand...

Who do you vote for?

Looks like the Labour campaign is again going to be 'we're not the Tories', only instead of Corbyn's batshit policies its going to be no policies at all.

I know loads of people who have said they will abstain.
 
11101 said:
Who do you vote for?

Looks like the Labour campaign is again going to be 'we're not the Tories', only instead of Corbyn's batshit policies its going to be no policies at all.

I know loads of people who have said they will abstain.
Click to expand...

I think the Tories will score an own goal there. Yes they'll be many inclined to abstain, including myself, however chances are the Tories will run a vile campaign that sees people vote against them.

Lib Dems might gain some seats but realistically the places they can compete is limited.
 
My considered opinion after a long study of the last ten years of Politics is this:

Tories are Fecked.
Starmer is Fecked.
We're all Fecked.

Sunak is scrabling about trying to bring in policies that may be popular with the 'red wall' seats but will never erase the memory (for me at least) of Liz Truss and co making a complete bollocks of the economy in 40 days or whatever it was. I have mates that lost large chunks of their pensions thanks to Kwarteng.

Starmer was on TV saying Jeremy Corbyn was his friend and colleague. Starmer was on TV when the Wokerati got to him saying Jeremy Corbyn was never his friend. Starmer was on TV looking lost when asked what Labour would do about, well, everything from small boats to Ukraine to potholes.

The only good thing that may happen in the GE is the annihilation of the SNP.
 
In the insane world where refugees no longer tried to get to the UK or the UK opened up safe routes and nobody crossed the Channel in a small boat. The 30,000 people that are deemed responsible for all the ills of the UK - can't blame them anymore - check. EU, no can't be them - Uk have left -check. Who's next on the hit list?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
In the insane world where refugees no longer tried to get to the UK or the UK opened up safe routes and nobody crossed the Channel in a small boat. The 30,000 people that are deemed responsible for all the ills of the UK - can't blame them anymore - check. EU, no can't be them - Uk have left -check. Who's next on the hit list?
Click to expand...
It'll go back to the glory days of 2010-15, the disabled and anyone else in receipt of benefits.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
In the insane world where refugees no longer tried to get to the UK or the UK opened up safe routes and nobody crossed the Channel in a small boat. The 30,000 people that are deemed responsible for all the ills of the UK - can't blame them anymore - check. EU, no can't be them - Uk have left -check. Who's next on the hit list?
Click to expand...

What is insane is that France, Germany and Italy obviously don't rely on shipping that sail through the Red Sea. Because these NATO nations declined to support the US/UK air strikes on Huthis in Yemen who have been attacking civilian shopping.
 
Buster15 said:
What is insane is that France, Germany and Italy obviously don't rely on shipping that sail through the Red Sea. Because these NATO nations declined to support the US/UK air strikes on Huthis in Yemen who have been attacking civilian shopping.
Click to expand...

Ships are going through the Red Sea and France has naval presence to escort /guard vessels - Sunak is lying as usual. The vessels carry goods for everybody. But they're still going through the Red Sea.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Ships are going through the Red Sea and France has naval presence to escort /guard vessels - Sunak is lying as usual. The vessels carry goods for everybody. But they're still going through the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that. But only today, another ship was attacked. What is Sunak lying about?
 
Buster15 said:
Yes I understand that. But only today, another ship was attacked. What is Sunak lying about?
Click to expand...

About the vessels all having to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Some are, most aren't. The pirates from Somalia were active for many years and have recently started again as well..
One strange thing is that goods bound for the US don't often go through the Red Sea.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
About the vessels all having to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Some are, most aren't. The pirates from Somalia were active for many years and have recently started again as well..
One strange thing is that goods bound for the US don't often go through the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. We will have to see how this issue plays out. I very much doubt it is over.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
About the vessels all having to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Some are, most aren't. The pirates from Somalia were active for many years and have recently started again as well..
One strange thing is that goods bound for the US don't often go through the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

Eh? Companies with over half of the market share of container shipments in the world are all going round the Cape of Good hope now. No one from MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM or Hapag Lloyd are going through the Red Sea at all. Only COSCO from the big 5 are the only ones going through the Red Sea but they've paused any shipments to/from Israel.
 
F-Red said:
Eh? Companies with over half of the market share of container shipments in the world are all going round the Cape of Good hope now. No one from MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM or Hapag Lloyd are going through the Red Sea at all. Only COSCO from the big 5 are the only ones going through the Red Sea but they've paused any shipments to/from Israel.
Click to expand...

I knew Hapag Lloyd were but not the others. How recent is this? Since last week? Vessels to and from Israel was supposed to be the target of the Houthi.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I knew Hapag Lloyd were but not the others. How recent is this? Since last week? Vessels to and from Israel was supposed to be the target of the Houthi.
Click to expand...

Most have announced just at the turn of the month and others recently, I've got 2 containers going around there bound for the UK. One with MSC and one with Maersk. Pricing is starting to increase on container, so we'll see a ripple effect in the cost of goods from around May onwards.
 
F-Red said:
Most have announced just at the turn of the month and others recently, I've got 2 containers going around there bound for the UK. One with MSC and one with Maersk. Pricing is starting to increase on container, so we'll see a ripple effect in the cost of goods from around May onwards.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that.
I looked on Maersk website and looked for a shipping time from Tangier to Singapore which they're still showing as 3.5 weeks for a vessel leaving in 2 days, ie through Suez.
Presume they're hoping/expecting a quick solution. Or will it escalate.
 
I had a colleague in my team today, the day after 5 asylum seekers died trying to cross The Channel, make a joke about how ‘we can defend the Red Sea but not the Channel. What I’d do is tell people we’re sinking the boats and then sink the next 20 that we find.’

Then, when challenged on the ethics, he chuckled, ‘I don’t care about the ethics of it, I care about the results.’

Turns out I know one of the 22%.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I had a colleague in my team today, the day after 5 asylum seekers died trying to cross The Channel, make a joke about how ‘we can defend the Red Sea but not the Channel. What I’d do is tell people we’re sinking the boats and then sink the next 20 that we find.’

Then, when challenged on the ethics, he chuckled, ‘I don’t care about the ethics of it, I care about the results.’

Turns out I know one of the 22%.
Click to expand...
Do you have a HR department?
 
Sweet Square said:
Seems he has got a friend now.
Click to expand...

Stopping the boats is a good thing, people really don't want asylum seekers making a dangerous crossing to get here. The question is how. Labour are talking about processing people in France and opening legal routes, not shipping people off to Rwanda.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I had a colleague in my team today, the day after 5 asylum seekers died trying to cross The Channel, make a joke about how ‘we can defend the Red Sea but not the Channel. What I’d do is tell people we’re sinking the boats and then sink the next 20 that we find.’

Then, when challenged on the ethics, he chuckled, ‘I don’t care about the ethics of it, I care about the results.’

Turns out I know one of the 22%.
Click to expand...
What a cnut.
 
Mart1974 said:
Stopping the boats is a good thing, people really don't want asylum seekers making a dangerous crossing to get here. The question is how. Labour are talking about processing people in France and opening legal routes, not shipping people off to Rwanda.
Click to expand...
Labour want to offshore people into just another country that isn’t Rwanda.
Labour is reportedly considering a scheme that would see asylum seekers’ claims processed elsewhere.Keir Starmer is mulling “detailed plans” for an offshoring scheme as he seeks to deter Tory attacks on Labour’s alternative to the Rwanda plan, the Times said on Monday.
The Labour leader has previously dismissed the plan to deport people to the African nation as a “gimmick” and made clear his party’s opposition.

However, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, and shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock have reportedly been speaking to asylum experts, former home secretary David Blunkett and other European countries to draw up an alternative proposal to tackle small boats crossings in the Channel.
Under the plan, asylum claims would be processed overseas, with successful applicants allowed to come to the UK. While explicit backing for an offshoring scheme would mark a significant shift for Labour, Starmer did signal earlier this month that he would not be opposed to considering such an approach.

“Other countries around the world do have schemes where they divert people on the way and process them elsewhere. That’s a different kind of scheme,” he told reporters after a speech in Buckinghamshire. “And, look, I’ll look at any scheme that might work.”

https://theguardian.com/uk-news/202...-considering-offshoring-asylum-seekers-claims
Click to expand...

Also the “experts” they are talking to like David Blunkett are the ones who originally came up with the Rwanda type policy -https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/29/tony-blair-rwanda-style-asylum-plan-2003
 
Sweet Square said:
Labour want to offshore people into just another country that isn’t Rwanda.


Also the “experts” they are talking to like David Blunkett are the ones who originally came up with the Rwanda type policy -https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/29/tony-blair-rwanda-style-asylum-plan-2003
Click to expand...
I don't see an issue per se in stopping the boats but to be some sort of society wide zeitgeist, as if it's a fight for suffrage or emancipation, is weird.

I don't think offshoring but I think processing people who arrive here undocumented, is fine. It's the turning it into a political football that winds me up.
 
Mart1974 said:
Stopping the boats is a good thing, people really don't want asylum seekers making a dangerous crossing to get here. The question is how. Labour are talking about processing people in France and opening legal routes, not shipping people off to Rwanda.
Click to expand...

I don't think the people Starmer is trying to appeal to with those statements care about the safety of immigrants.

I agree with your point but the question is does Starmer need to parrot anti-immigrant language to promote such policy?
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
I don't see an issue per se in stopping the boats but to be some sort of society wide zeitgeist, as if it's a fight for suffrage or emancipation, is weird.

I don't think offshoring but I think processing people who arrive here undocumented, is fine. It's the turning it into a political football that winds me up.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s a tiny tiny number of people and a issue that effects no one in this country. Any British government could easily created safe route and have these people looked after.

As it’s been mentioned it’s bottom of the barrel stuff from a political system in deep decline and unwilling to accept any reforms.
 
What's this redrawing of the boundaries then? Does that make it harder for a Labour election win? I thought they were still so far ahead in the polling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.