It's very difficult for two people who don't believe in anything to have an argument
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Tbh if the right wing press have any sense they should keeping asking Starmer this question
Charles Mason or Corbyn
Bin Laden or Corbyn
Rose West or Corbyn
just to see how far he is willing to go.
Charles Mason or Corbyn
Bin Laden or Corbyn
Rose West or Corbyn
just to see how far he is willing to go.
are strikes part of the culture war?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hift-to-right-on-social-issues-says-thinktank
Keir Starmer’s Labour should consider moving to the right on social issues to appeal to floating voters who have a left-leaning stance on economic matters but are more traditional on cultural policies, a thinktank report argues.
The study by the right-leaning Onward claims that even a relatively small rightward shift on cultural values could deliver enough additional votes to bring a 1997-style landslide for Labour at the next election, or even more.
That seems to rely on voters believing what Labour say, at some point they're going to question the sincerity of it.
The election is locked down at this point but the Tories know they can push Labour right in their attempts to regain some vote share. They'll escalate things and Starmer is going to fall into the trap and follow their lead.
It must be so easy to work at one of these Think Tanks. Get the guardian to publish an article about a report that is months old, saying the Labour Party has to move to the right in the same week as the party openly admits to a more reactionary view on trans rights than Theresa May. Then be completely unclear on actual left economic policy, while saying the party needs to win over left authoritarian voters.
English politics is basically spending 5 years calling anyone who wanted to fund the NHS and teach about the British Empire, a Stalinist while only to then say we need a more authoritarian state that doesn’t support workers, arrested protesters more effectively and deport people more quickly.
Very low energy
Ex-leadership let hate spread within Labour - Starmer
Labour's previous leadership allowed "hate to spread unchallenged", party leader Sir Keir Starmer has claimed.
In an address at London Labour's annual conference, he said work to tackle discrimination "never stops".
The party was plagued by antisemitism scandals under Jeremy Corbyn, with a 2020 report finding Labour to be in breach of the Equality Act.
The former leader acknowledged antisemitism in the party but said it was overstated for political reasons.
Mr Corbyn was suspended from Labour over these comments and readmitted a month later - although not to the parliamentary party. He continues to sit in the Commons as an independent MP.
Sir Keir said he would make tackling antisemitism - prejudice or hostility against Jewish people - a priority after taking over in 2020.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64440331
One for your blood pressure if it is too low.
I’m not going to vote for Labour unless Corbyn says we should.
Kier is going to be very disappointed with himself when he finds out that he campaigned twice for Corbyn to be PM.
In the incredibly likely situation that Labour win the next election, it will be interesting to see if they continue this line because to the disappointment of a lot “centre left” people, simply saying Corbyn is a bad man won’t fix the cost of living crisis or rising levels of poverty.
Things can only get better or not
I'm so sick of these ghouls, I really hope they never get anywhere near power.
There’s such an easy out by saying he wants to respect Scotland’s devolved powers. No wonder Welsh labour hate these guys
He's right on both counts then.
Hardly. He could repurpose the money he clearly has earmarked for "replenishing UK weapon stocks" but obviously sees "good Labour things" (whatever the feck that means) as less important.
The Tories were only able to do so much damage because Corbyn allowed them to win such a large majority.
So when Labour get into power and do feck all to help anyone, it's actually Jeremy Corbyn's fault.
I can’t wait to emigrate.
Doesn't he refer to illegal immigrants, in which case Rayner's reply is correct.
Illegal entry to the country is what is inflaming the situation against all immigrants and giving the far right a free pass to stir up hatred and abuse.
Legal Immigration to the UK has always existed and the country has benefited, for centuries. However what has happened is the numbers wishing to come to this country, which for a time was boosted by the 'freedom of movement' whilst we were in the EU, are exceeding the capability of the authorities to respond effectively to an increasing influx. This is not just in terms of processing new arrivals, but in making provision for their settlement in the country that doesn't result in strains on local services.
Until such time as the country's systems can cope, anyone arriving illegally should be tagged until their status is confirmed, this is only fair to those who have arrived legally... after all 'queuing' is a great British tradition
anyone arriving illegally should be tagged until their status is confirmed, this is only fair to those who have arrived legally... after all 'queuing' is a great British tradition
Doesn't he refer to illegal immigrants, in which case Rayner's reply is correct.
Illegal entry to the country is what is inflaming the situation against all immigrants and giving the far right a free pass to stir up hatred and abuse.
Legal Immigration to the UK has always existed and the country has benefited, for centuries. However what has happened is the numbers wishing to come to this country, which for a time was boosted by the 'freedom of movement' whilst we were in the EU, are exceeding the capability of the authorities to respond effectively to an increasing influx. This is not just in terms of processing new arrivals, but in making provision for their settlement in the country that doesn't result in strains on local services.
Until such time as the country's systems can cope, anyone arriving illegally should be tagged until their status is confirmed, this is only fair to those who have arrived legally... after all 'queuing' is a great British tradition
I know the government and the British media are lumping all immigrants into one pot. But asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants nor criminals. Illegal immigrants are those living on the black and in secret. Asylum seekers have no choice because the UK government do not give them safe routes to claim asylum and have their claims processed correctly . Guess what - the British people have fallen for the lies, yet again!
I see the murdered Brianna Ghey is not deserving of mention in his twitter feed. Predictably.
Doesn't he refer to illegal immigrants, in which case Rayner's reply is correct.
Illegal entry to the country is what is inflaming the situation against all immigrants and giving the far right a free pass to stir up hatred and abuse.
Legal Immigration to the UK has always existed and the country has benefited, for centuries. However what has happened is the numbers wishing to come to this country, which for a time was boosted by the 'freedom of movement' whilst we were in the EU, are exceeding the capability of the authorities to respond effectively to an increasing influx. This is not just in terms of processing new arrivals, but in making provision for their settlement in the country that doesn't result in strains on local services.
Until such time as the country's systems can cope, anyone arriving illegally should be tagged until their status is confirmed, this is only fair to those who have arrived legally... after all 'queuing' is a great British tradition
For generations legal entry into the country was said to have inflamed the situation too. Attlee tried to divert the Empire Windrush to East Africa. Decades ago governments were blaming immigrants (who mostly were not immigrants as they were British) for people not having services and housing too, masking their own failings.
Most illegal immigrants are visa overstays too.
Most of the illegal immigrants around our area are British, overstayers of their 3 month allowed time whilst staying in their holiday homes longer than they should. I' d love to see their faces if they were tagged as illegals, especially if they are Brexit voters. With the new EU Entry/Exit system being introduced hopefully this year there will be so much fun.
Ignores the virtual impossibility of legally applying for asylum in the UK. Ignores the deliberate conflation of asylum seekers, immigrants in general and "illegal" immigrants. Supports draconian measure. Something in italics. Smiley.Doesn't he refer to illegal immigrants, in which case Rayner's reply is correct.
Illegal entry to the country is what is inflaming the situation against all immigrants and giving the far right a free pass to stir up hatred and abuse.
Legal Immigration to the UK has always existed and the country has benefited, for centuries. However what has happened is the numbers wishing to come to this country, which for a time was boosted by the 'freedom of movement' whilst we were in the EU, are exceeding the capability of the authorities to respond effectively to an increasing influx. This is not just in terms of processing new arrivals, but in making provision for their settlement in the country that doesn't result in strains on local services.
Until such time as the country's systems can cope, anyone arriving illegally should be tagged until their status is confirmed, this is only fair to those who have arrived legally... after all 'queuing' is a great British tradition
Is it wrong to point out the irony that the EU have given more information to UK citizens living there about what they need to do to stay than the British state did to the entire Windrush generation?
They have been very lenient in France with the British and the process of staying was very helpful and cheap.
The UK seem to make the process as difficult as possible.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if current Labour had just as abhorrent views on the Trans community as the Tories.
The line gets blurred between the two every day.
Rosie Duffield for one.
'People trafficking' (and follow on issues such as 'slave labour,' enforced bondage, etc.) is the crime scenario that flourishes when people who otherwise are legitimately seeking asylum, choose to put themselves in the hands of criminals in order to use illegal means to enter the country. This distorts everything, because there are lots of displaced (including potential asylum seekers) people who do not have the ability to pay criminals to get them into the country.
The government has no option but to stop illegal immigration via people trafficking, and to find ways to fairly operate a system that gives as much opportunity as possible to genuine asylum seekers. Initially, if genuine asylum seekers cannot be dissuaded from using people trafficking criminals, then yes the measures taken will become more draconian. No government, Labour (who would probably be more focused) or Tory, or any coalition Government can get away from this fact.
Yes this is true, and lots of issues from those days have been carried forward by many politicians, of all parties, for their political gain in the intervening years. However whilst those were essentially 'political' decisions, not incurring criminality, the current situation of 'people trafficking' (or in some cases modern day slavery), is what is causing the concern to Governments, because its opening a new and insidious criminal scenario.
Large influxes of people, especially into already deprived areas, requires proper planning not only for the way of arrival and entry, but also in terms making support services, housing provision in particular, more efficient and effective, once they are settled.
There can be no doubt that over centuries, by and large, when immigration in general is planned effectively the country as a whole benefits from the new arrivals and from their subsequent generations. There have been many decisions taken by many Governments in the past that have been dubious to say the least, in these matters. However the present Government and any new Government is going to face the fact that along with many other countries that energy and water management, climate change issues will loom large, they will also face mass migration issues as resources grow scarce and such matters are going to be a feature of the more immediate future, than many seem to comprehend.
The criminal element, in particular people trafficking has to be removed otherwise chaos will ensue.
Anyone arriving illegally put themselves outside the law, its that simple Paul.
Sailing across the channel, in unfit overcrowded boats, arriving unannounced, entering British waters unscheduled and without permission, is illegal, no matter whether someone is a genuine Asylum seeker or not.
I agree there should be better and safer routes and sooner or later the Government of the day will have to face that fact, as world wide mass immigration grows. However resorting to criminal activity is not exactly endearing someone to the authorities.
France is a big country plenty of room and as you continually tell us Paul is much better at doing things than the British, surely they can persuade asylum seekers to stay in France, at least until a proper and safe route to the UK is found?
Except they're not outside the law at all, there's plenty of rulings that say they're not illegal even if their passage isn't approved.
Who are they?
How do the authorities know they are dealing with authentic asylum seekers when they are unscheduled arrivals, many without documentation of any sort, how can such validation processes be undertaken in the middle of the English channel on a flimsy boat?
It is illegal 'people trafficking' clear and simple and those participating are breaking the law and until that is dealt with the whole process will continue to be a political football in the UK. Asylum seekers will not be helped by any illegal activity, it simply defers the date when the government, any Government really has to improve safe routes.
Illegal people trafficking enabled by our Government making it almost impossible to apply for asylum legally. It's being made a political football, and exploited people are dying in boats in a freezing sea, because our country has actively and deliberately made it as difficult as possible to get here.
It's not illegal for someone to leave France or any other country. France take two or three times as many asylum seekers or refugees than the UK do. Germany much more as do almost all European countries.
Each country is set up to cope with the population. The UK has a similar population to France. How does France cope? How does Germany cope and all the others? It is just a poor excuse by the UK government. Apart from anything else the refugees/asylum seekers make up a small percentage of the immigrants so the argument of not enough services doesn't hold up. Furthermore the boat people have increased significantly since the UK left the EU and the Dublin agreement.
The people being transported by the criminal gangs aren't just sitting in Calais. They're being transported from elsewhere and packed straight onto boats. Some may have only spent an hour in France before being loaded onto a boat.
If the UK co-operated with the rest of Europe and set-up a system processing the applicants there wouldn't be a need to have people risking their lives in boats. The criminal gangs would go mainly out of business. 77% of asylum seekers are granted asylum.
Threatening to deport the refugees to Rwanda will not deter the criminal gangs, what do they care?
The UK advertise how great things are. They get put up in 4 star hotels according to Farage. Not one single person has been deported to Rwanda. If the UK leave the ECHR then their deal with the EU will be over. The economy will collapse even more.
The government are using the asylum seekers as a political football and it's so obvious. But it works. What appeals to British voters the most - nationalism and hatred of foreigners. Starmer's joined in with the fascists to try to gain some votes.