I'm not sure why UK police would need to work in another country without the authority of that country and I'm not sure where that has been suggested. They have said they want to speed up asylum processing and Yvette Cooper spoke of redeploying staff who had been focused on the Rwanda scheme to assist with this. I imagine more details will be upcoming but I can't see that there is no indication that more people will be trained to make asylum decisions.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Biden is one of the most pro Israel presidents in the whole history of the US, and he's helping to facilitate what is going on.
To see "purity testing" as a term about criticizing the leader of the biggest world power is certainly something. Or is purity testing used to characterise simply being less than impressed with the people who are now fawning over Biden because he finally realized what everyone could already see? If so then we're entering into the Uno world, where it's no longer possible to disagree with someone without being a purity tester.
So what is this Border Security Command? What the traffickers are doing is illegal and always has been and traffickers have been arrested in the UK , in the EU and elsewhere.
Other than what is already happening, what is the purpose and how is it going to secure British borders (from the security threat of a few people in a boat) and how will it be a deterrent like the Rwanda scheme wasn't a deterrent?
If people want to seek asylum in the UK rather than elsewhere they will attempt to do so. So instead of setting up some gimmicky powerless Border Security Command and pay someone £200k p.a. to be in charge of it, set up safe routes and locations for processing to be made by trained staff.
Because you need costings and for where the money is coming from to be explained otherwise you risk a Truss moment
''Border Security Commander will provide strategic direction to work across agencies, drawing together the work of the National Crime Agency (NCA), intelligence agencies, police, Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, to better protect our borders and go after the smuggling gangs facilitating small boat crossings.
Following the Home Secretary’s instruction, a core team in the Home Office is establishing the remit, governance and strategic direction of the new command. Early legislation is being prepared to introduce new counter terror style powers and stronger measures to tackle organised immigration crime.
She has also commissioned a bespoke investigation from the department and the NCA into the latest routes, methods and tactics used by people smuggling gangs across Europe to inform a major law enforcement drive over the coming months.
The BSC will draw on substantial additional resources, with work to bring in more investigators, experts and analysts to tackle organised immigration crime starting on Monday. A significant number of these will be based across Europe, working with Europol and European police forces to disrupt the activity of the criminal smuggling gangs and ensure those profiting from people smuggling are brought to justice.''
It looks like they seem pretty confident they can get people under UK command working in European countries. Things can already have been a crime but not adequately enforced. The proof will of course be in the results gained. You have made it clear that you believe Starmer has a fundamental lack of understanding of the UK's powers. I disagree.
The UK Green co-leader is giving the blandest, most generic "well wishes" i think a politician could give, even to the point where they are actually saying "thanks for going away", and OJ set out a list of demands to be met as penance. All i see are people with even small amounts of power on the left yelling at people on the left and demanding shit. I'm sick of it. Same infighting in France making the left look like clueless morons, now the UK left demanding shit from other people on the left for a tweet.
Christ, what's the point? Is this where left politics is now worldwide? Bickering nihilists pulling down people so everyone drowns together?
I don't think you do for this. The markets generally haven't had a problem with borrowing to invest (HS2 is an example of this). This is a form of borrowing to ensure a better outcome and a stronger economy.
Politically Labour may feel that cannot do things which are not costed. But this isn't a massively unfunded tax cut.
There is no yelling, and no demands. Just disagreement. You're closer to doing what you're accusing Jones of, by far, and you're still not.
Purity testing usually involves cutting someone out or off if they fail to reach a desired standard on selected topics. Has Jones gone from being pro Sanders to anti Sanders because of that tweet?
Starmer still thinks the UK have the same rights and access as they did when in the EU. Just now you said you agreed UK police could not work outside the UK , now you say they can.
I've read all the above before and since the election. All these things are already in place and no, the UK do not have access to EU databases like when they were in the EU. The International police forces do not need Starmer to come to solve the criminal trafficking gangs. It's all nonsense basically to avoid setting up legal safe routes as was said before the election. There will be co-operation between forces as there always has been.
But there's no Starmer charging in on his white horse "Smashing the Gangs"; The world has been waiting for Starmer - it seems.
Gimmick.
"Retract the statement and meet with the specific group I mention" is not a demand? Ok then. Why does the co-leader have to do any of that?
Things are going well!
"I hope" is not a demand, no. In some contexts it could be an implied threat, but Jones of course has no leverage so that would be an absurd interpretation. The co-leader doesn't have to do any of that, and I don't think anyone has claimed she does.
You can keep saying he thinks he still has the same right and access but you are not showing it. If he thought he had the same rights and access he probably wouldn't need to be negotiating with international partners.
UK police can work outside the UK and it's false to say that I have said they couldn't. You said that 'UK Police have no authority to work in other countries' and I replied that 'I'm not sure why UK police would need to work in another country without the authority of that country and I'm not sure where that has been suggested.'
'Without the authority' is the qualifier.
You ask questions like 'is it funded?' and 'priority should be to train people to deal with processing asylum claims... that's the major thing that's lacking'
When it was included in the coated manifesto and a key provision is to speed up asylum claim processing and to redeploy staff from the Rwanda scheme to assist with this. So if you are reading it you are either missing parts or choosing to ignore them.
The point I'm making is that gangs are being arrested all the time by international police forces. They've not been waiting for Starmer. Police can operate in other countries with the permission of the host country as has always been the case.
What does Starmer thinks he brings to the party - all the dozens of gangs that have been arrested throughout the world and the EU have been done without Starmer.
He should concentrate on arresting the gangs that are in the UK. Train people - all the rest is ridiculous.
None of this will stop the gangs though, like drugs smuggling, illegal trade. There will always be someone else. When the freeports come along it be yet another nightmare. Strangely Starmer is keen to keep them.
The Rwanda scheme hasn't always existed. It's a non-operational scheme - How many people are involved in this. Where are the people who treat asylum applications? how long does it take to train them? How do other countries cope with considerably more applicants?
It's all so much nonsense.
There is no deterrent - the only solution is to deal with setting up legal safe routes which could start tomorrow if there was a will, which there isn't because he's still shit-scared of the xenophobes.
You’re replying to someone that clings to the belief that he knows more about the EU than Starmer. And maintains Starmer knows nothing.
Pushing shit uphill.
Starmer the all knowledgable being. He 's an idiot.
Ok - so police can have the authority to work in other countries with their consent. The extent of their powers in other countries is presumably by agreement between countries and thus the 'negotiating with international partners' and work to reset relations with European allies.
Unless you believe the law enforcement procedures are operating at maximum possible efficiency then increased co-operation and resource should surely cause more difficulties for the gangs.
I don't believe it's possible to fully stop the gangs and people smuggling but if you make things more difficult and less profitable you can reduce it. I think that's common sense if you accept the criminal gangs are in it for the money rather than pursuing some noble cause of reuniting vulnerable refugees with their family.
According the the Home Secretary (and I have no reason to disbelieve this) there are over 1000 civil servants involved in the scheme. That's only around 4% of the Home Office operational staff but it's still a significant figure. I'm unclear how many other people have worked/are working on the scheme but I can only imagine it is a fairly substantial number). The people who deal with asylum applications work from a variety of locations on an expectation of approximately 40% office/60% home based time. The training period for an asylum decision maker is approximately 22 weeks with an expectation they will achieve full competency within 6 months of taking the role. I'm not sure why the time to train them would be an issue though, as a policy has to start somewhere. I'm unsure on how other countries are able to deal with considerably more applicants, but hopefully increased co-operation allows us to learn something from them and streamline our processes.
There is a deterrent inherent in border security and immigration policies. How effective individual measures are is up for debate but I would be happier with a system where asylum claims were dealt with efficiently, fairly and humanely with people who do qualify quickly granted rights while those who genuinely don't qualify are removed rather than being trapped in a quasi permanent detention. I agree legal routes should be set up and we need to ensure we have our decision making process adequately resourced and streamlined to make swift determinations on claims received.
Actually enjoyed PMQs for once?! Actually a productive conversation where both sides could agree on things. What’s going on?! 
I'm sure it will be back to normal once a new Conservative leader is in place. I think Sunak is holding on to do what he considers is the right thing by the party but I doubt his heart is fully in it/the worst has already happened for him so he has less need to appease fringe groups. I doubt Starmer is going to complain too much about questions like that either and it's pretty low stakes just at the moment. National interest in politics is probably still a bit exhausted after the election period.Actually enjoyed PMQs for once?! Actually a productive conversation where both sides could agree on things. What’s going on?!
It is a shame it probably will revert to the mess it was, though.
Of course the gangs are in it for the money and are operating worldwide. there is already co-operation between police forces. No police forces operate at full efficiency and a few extra police from the Uk aren't going to make much difference even if they were allowed. The UK needs more police inside its own country.
Whereas having safe and legal routes would be the cheapest and easiest way to spoil the criminal trafficking gangs model. Do it today. Why is he so against it? It would save overseas police forces money and time as well. it will never stop completely.
Today at PMQ Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe argued that legal and illegal immigration have had “brutal consequences” on the UK.
The prime minister replied:
Does Starmer get his information from the Express and Sun?
The tiny tiny amount of people coming on boats does not equal legal and illegal immigration. He conflates the two.
Sorry but it's a gimmick.
Ok, so if we agree that criminal gangs are motivated by profit then I presume it follows that making an activity less profitable for them reduces their incentive to continue and that isn't something you would dispute. I imagine there are other routes and ways for them to traffick people into the country but I don't think it's a stretch to say that if any of them were easier/more profitable that they would already be in use.
I don't have specifics of how additional resource would be deployed or exactly what increased cooperation would entail as I do not believe they are publicly available but I haven't seen evidence to suggest that there are only incremental gains to be had in pursuing those policies. I'm not sure how much money is available to refugees to pay to come back again if there claim was swiftly processed and rejected. I'm unclear how much criminal gangs charge but I guess it is moderately substantial and I imagine a lot of these people have very limited means.
Again I agree we should open safe and legal routes but there is also the need to be able to process these claims promptly and fairly or you leave people in limbo.
I don't agree with a reform MP but I do think it's important for any country to have an effective system to deal with both legal and illegal migration.
I don't have specifics of how additional resource would be deployed or exactly what increased cooperation would entail as I do not believe they are publicly available but I haven't seen evidence to suggest that there are only incremental gains to be had in pursuing those policies. I'm not sure how much money is available to refugees to pay to come back again if there claim was swiftly processed and rejected. I'm unclear how much criminal gangs charge but I guess it is moderately substantial and I imagine a lot of these people have very limited means.
Again I agree we should open safe and legal routes but there is also the need to be able to process these claims promptly and fairly or you leave people in limbo.
I don't agree with a reform MP but I do think it's important for any country to have an effective system to deal with both legal and illegal migration.
I despise Reform UK but he's talking about illegal and legal immigration - there are three types of immigrants, (well four if you include Brits returning because they can no longer live in the EU because of Brexit) - flood expected next year.
1. The legal immigration is that of people who have permission to be in the country (1.2million last year)
2. The number of illegal immigrants (visa overstayers etc, people who comes on tourist visa and stay to work for example) - these figures appear to be unknown.
3. Refugees and asylum seekers- now wrongly classed as illegal immigrants and max number so far per year is about 40k+.
The answer from Starmer, which was pathetic, just concentrated on this Border Security Command regarding small boats.
The small boats is the easiest to resolve comparatively but all the effort is concentrated on a solution that will make little difference.
Brexit forced the people to come in boats, it barely existed before, a Brexit benefit, because of the extra checks due on lorries and trains, even though this is still not fully functional. Another way will be found if that is stopped.
Or open up safe legal routes, save a fortune. The Uk are paying French police to patrol the shoreline which is thousands of kilometres long. French police could be better deployed doing other things - this is just because the UK won't open up a processing centre in Calais or at embassies in Paris or in other safe countries across the world which would avoid lengthy dangerous journeys for most and avoid needing the people to pay thousands of dollars to trafficking gangs. Or the long forgotten reason - the dangerous crossing across the Channel which all the politicians were really worried about.
Politically Labour won't do things which are not costed and they are right.
Starmer and Labour have a long way to go, on child poverty and many other issues, these have to be tackled as and when the strategy is right and the 'coffers' are starting to fill up'.
These Labour MPs (who effectively went over to the SNP) need to forget their 'political Grandstanding' and roll up their sleeves and help the party make a success of not just being in Government, but with this majority they are also ' in power'.The current and future generations of ordinary people are relying on this government to 'move the dial'. Any Labour MP who allows 'grandstanding/playing to the gallery' gestures to put this at risk, deserves to get the boot.
Ok - but this isn't about a PMQ response, it's about the policy - specifically the policy related to Borderforce Command and the Small Boats issue which is the case in point at the moment.
You have said that the response proposed will make little difference - what are you basing that on? Are there papers you have read on it showing increased international co-operation and resources into targeting criminal gangs is an ineffective way of dealing with the issue? You have said that another way will be found and sure, it might, but the reason that boats weren't really used when smuggling on lorries etc was possible is, I assume, economic. Any reduction in profitability for the criminal gangs reduces their incentives to continue. It also reduces the affordability for migrants who (again an assumption on my part) probably have limited access to resources. It's the same reason that if people are deported they aren't 'just going to make their way back again.' which is another argument I have seen. Some may, but I imagine many will have borrowed or saved for a long time to cover the smuggling fees. You have talked about the limits of co-operation and how money would be better spent elsewhere and that argument may well have merit but I think there is still a lot of ground to be gained by seeking to increase resource and working on a unified, cogent strategy. In general I agree with the UN ODC
https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/migrant-smuggling.html
Still we will see in time, you might be right and other states/the EU may laugh at Starmer's naïveté and he will be rightly punished at the ballot box if he doesn't produce results.
The question was about all immigration, and Starmer's response was just about the small boats which the British public have been brainwashed into being a major cause of all the UK's problems. Even if he stopped all the people coming by boat it would make no significant difference to immigration. It's a tiny figure. How is this a threat to the security of the borders?
I was assured that once he was voted in he would stop pretending to be a tw@t and he'd only spent the time since 2016 being one so that he could win over the dumbos in the red wall.
But being hopeless as Shadow Brexit Secretary and Opposition leader was not an illusion.
The issue with people smuggling gangs is not a new thing and is being dealt with - about 40% of attempts have been stopped (without Starmer's invaluable contribution).
Before they used lorries, containers and so on. It got more difficult with more customs controls and thus switched to boats.
Obviously people have borrowed money, sold their possessions or whatever to find a way to get to the UK. It won't stop. He won't stop it.
Being cruel to asylum seekers and refugees is not supposed to be a vote winner. Make it simpler and process them.
There is a huge solution, he won't use it.
I'm sorry that you feel people have misled you.
Anyone being able to enter the country via illegal means is a threat to the security of the borders - that's not to suggest that asylum seekers are a threat but there is clearly a weakness that could be exploited.
We started this back and forth an hour and a half before PMQs started so I wasn't overly concerned with the question/response.
You aren't explaining your reasoning at the moment - you disagree with Starmer and the UN Organisation on Drugs and Crime about the effectiveness of international co-operation and that's fine.
I'm unclear as to why a border force that focuses on organised crime rather than punishing the migrants is cruelty to win votes and likewise I'm not clear why ending the Rwanda plan/Bibby Stockholm and seeking to clear the backlog of applications would be seen to be the same, but there's clearly a line of disagreement that doesn't seem close to being resolved.
I wasn't really misled - I knew exactly how he would be - having followed Brexit very closely - he's one of the politicians I've observed among others more closely - his view and understanding of Brexit is so naïve. He's even still talking about his veterinary agreement with the EU, unbelievable. And thinks he's renegotiating the Deal. Beyond belief.
The Rwanda plan was never going to happen under the Tories or Labour unless the UK left the ECHR , broke the Northern Ireland agreement and cancelled the Trade Deal with the EU. Nobody was going to do this so he didn't have much choice. Yes cancelling the Bibby Stocklholm and all other inhumane institutions would be a start, heard it's next year though is a good thing and of course clearing the backlog.
But to think that smashing the gangs is some new idea or that it will stop people trying to come to the UK is fantasy thinking. Why not smash the drugs gangs and stop all drugs shipments? It's like a child's thoughts.
In the event that all the gangs in the world were stopped and arrested in Starmer's fantasy -what happens to the refugees and asylum seekers who want to come to the UK? How do they claim refugee status or asylum - is the door closed? Or do they miraculously suddenly open them and process thousands of people if they come from Ukraine?
Thought this was a good summary of yesterday’s vote.
Absolute state of these candidates. Embarrassing list to choose from.
MPs should be allowed to vote without fear of being reprimanded, that's called fecking democracy. All Starmers done is showcase that he's no different from the Tory scumbags by throwing his toys out the pram when people don't follow his every demand. The issue for me isn't the vote itself and it's outcome, a new Government should be given time to assess and come up with different strategies (although they're already making big decisions so i'm not totally sure that flies) but their should be no punishments, it's just so fecking petty and small time and frankly makes him appear like an utter cnut.
Fully agree that they should not have had the whip withdrawn. My understanding is that the vote yesterday was related to the Kings Speech hence a sort of confidence issue for the Government. Still don’t agree with their action though.
Wow.
It's an incendiary assertion denied by Labour. I imagine that's why Sky deleted - it cannot be verified.
Her point about people wanting delivery, not taskforces is incredible; the call for a taskforce is a week old, if that.
They have not been reprimanded as MPs they have been reprimanded as members of the Labour party. Their democratic rights as MPs remain. My view is that to campaign on the Labour manifesto and then vote against it at the very first opportunity is just plain dishonest. They should have stood as independents, or better still for a party with an actual manifesto that could be compared and considered.
That's just living in a fantasy world as you well know. You can be an MP agreeing with 95% of the parties ideologies but as an MP it's their duty to represent their constituency as much as their own personal beliefs. Having a party of yes men with no convictions to follow their own beliefs and moral compass seems utterly wrong to me. Highlights everything wrong with British politics.
Good point, but also, can't they leave the party if they disagree on these core issues and operate independently?
If MPs feel trapped in party politics, there's no one better than them to start the change.
It doesn't say anywhere in the manifesto anything about keeping the cap. That isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot in there about how awful child poverty is and how they are committed to enacting policies that eradicate it. You can easily argue that voting to get rid of the cap is more in-keeping with what is said in the manifesto, than not.
And before you say "but it doesn't say specifically in the manifesto that the party are going to spend £3 billion on lifting the cap"... it doesn't say that the party are going to give Ukraine £3 billion a year either, but Starmer decided to announce that after coming in to power.
You might want to re-think the word fantasy. The rebels are currently not wanted as Labour MPs, that is reality. They could of course form a new party where they could happily follow their own moral compass and disagree with each other and vote against each other all the time, I'm sure some people would go for it.