I did but what exactly is this border security to tackle the gangs?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I did but what exactly is this border security to tackle the gangs?
Most people just see a Tory defecting and she'll only be around for 6 or so months. I can see why he did it, not a lot of downside risk really. In fact, the surprise is such a cautious politician took the risk.
The public won't easily swing back to the Tories, because they are going to get shattered, not just beaten. The lessons they need to learn to rebuild as a centrist party are going to take 2-3 crushing electoral defeats to sink in, as it did for Labour. They need to change everything, as their base withers and dies. It is going to be far harder for them to come back, because of the ground they need to travel to get back to reality.
And I think you underprice the power that comes with Labour being able to set the terms of the political debate. That is something they cannot do at the moment. But they will in a few months.
The Tories have gone so far right and are so corrupted that they've completely vacated the ground they stood on to win the previous elections. Labour have now just slid right in there to fill the gap. The gap now is where the Labour party used to be which is why so many are now feeling politically homeless.
She's left the Tories because she wanted to be a housing minister and didn't get a ministerial post. She thinks that Starmer will be more efficient at stopping the boats. She will also have meltdown in the summer with the queues at Dover and when the EU Entry/Exit system comes into operation, probably in the Autumn and Dover becomes a carpark.
I really don't see her gracefully fading into the background. Or telling the truth. Have a sneaky feeling she'll want to be MP either in Dover or somewhere else and a ministerial post on top.
The Tories crushed Labour in 2019 but will be crushed in 2024. Same five year difference. If nothing dramatically improves...
People smuggling will still exist, this will be people who cannot get in through the legal route or those who don't want to go through legal routes at all so tacking people smuggling is a big deal to stop people putting their lives in danger by crossing the channel. Obviously we will need to see the detail and how it works in practice but it certainly sounds better than the Rwanda scheme.
Will be interesting to see who they elect next as leader, if it turns out to be Braverman, things will get even worse for them.
I agree but don't see what the detail can be. The criminal gangs operate in the Uk, in Europe and elsewhere and are being caught and stopped but there are lots that aren't and another gang willl probably replace another if there's a market and without legal routes there's a bigger market.
What I don't see is what this Border Security force is going to do or how it will have any deterrent effect.
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
The Tories line is the Rwanda bill deterrent effect.
Yes, by the way you have missed out the Suez Canal debacle in the 1950's. I was only a 'whipper-snappy' myself then, but all the wars you mentioned, although we didn't always have 'boots on the ground' in some (well officially anyway) cost us lots of money that went into and still is featured in the national debit, somewhere. Make no mistake Paul preparing for any emergency, be it pandemic or war, costs money and as we've seen with Covid, lots of money gets siphoned off into the pockets of the 'carpet-baggers' and it takes away emphasis on other things.
Yes, the armed services get decimated, in between such emergencies, it used to be known 'as the 'peace dividend'
I do think Sunak is right to worry about the next 5 years, I would say the next 5-15 years. However, I don't buy into his pitch about what a Labour government would do, that is just sabre-rattling/scare-mongering.
Because it is already a sideshow, the effects may not yet be fully felt that's true, but compared with what is likely to 'come down the pike' it will be something that will be put to the side, both here and in the EU; essentially because mutual survival (economic and political) will require some changes, the more idiot rules/regulations on both sides will be 'eased' or passed over. No one will be seen to be breaking any 'golden rules' of trade, but then again no one will be specifically looking.
'Black markets', smuggling, and other war time/emergency situations will occur if it becomes necessary... maybe the criminals smuggling people will be orientated towards smuggling goods.... less profitable, but much less hazardous in the future, especially in emergency situations. That is what is referred to as a 'wartime economy'
Paul If you haven't any idea who can do what is necessary, then Starmer is 'johnny on the spot' and we go with him.
Yeah because they already did the people smuggler attack line. They can't keep saying it because it hasn't worked and people spot that. Labour now using lines from Boris Johnsons time doesn't make it suddenly new.
At least Labour aren't sticking with the Rwanda plan that's something I guess.
She's not standing at the next election and I imagine Labour will have accepted her on that basis.
I think there's bit more to it than that...
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
Except it's not the same line as the Tories though is it? They are using the Rwanda bill which Starmer has said he will dump and has suggested this new policy which makes sense however the detail is yet to come out. The Tories did some work with France but focused all their efforts on Rwanda. I'll wait to see what's in the policy before judging.
The media are pulling so far to the right that I'm not sure I see the Tories drifting back to the centre if they suffer a heavy election defeat. They might well lurch further right.
Suez was before my time.
Brexit has been made out to be a sideshow because nobody dares mention it and furthermore nobody has any idea how to get out of the problems they brought on themselves, which yes, are only just starting. The Tories and Labour don't want the public to talk about it but strangely every day there's another problem brought up. It's barely mentioned in the EU apart from companies who exported to the UK.
The rules aren't going to change. This is Starmer's fantasy. Because he still does not understand what Brexit has brought to the UK. It's not only EU rules, Single Market Rules, Customs Union rules, it's WTO rules, international rules. Please stop believing Starmer's nonsense.
The EU does not need the UK despite the Brexit rubbish from eight years ago for mutual survival. This has to stop soon for the Uk's sake.
There are 67 milion people in the UK. Surely there must be one to replace Starmer.
I think they will totally make that mistake, they are run by ideologues. Short term, if they were wise it'd be a sort of Michael Howard type of figure post Blair, who can sort out the machinery of putting the party back in touch with the voters (rather than the members).
Long term, it has to be someone less ideological who recognises there is no future for them in being UKIP, all while their base narrows through demographic change and natural wastage.
I don't think they have anyone like that though - the closest they got to that was Boris Johnson but he only managed to square the circle by lying to everyone. Brexit has destroyed the Tories by making it become an English nationalist party. I think the long term route back for them will involve them becoming the sort of party they were under Cameron, but I think it's going to take them being kicked a few good times before they re-learn that lesson, a bit like Labour had to learn their lesson about the centre ground.
I've absolutely no idea how long you've closely been following politics but outside of the last 12 months focus on Rwanda the line has been people traffickers. Cameron had it, May had her slavery/trafficking act then Johnson the border bill.
That goes all the way back to Cameron where the NCA and intelligence were involved at the height of the Med crisis (which seems to be the detail of Starmers 'new policy).
So if by new the announcement is 'we're not doing Rwanda' then yeah it's new in the back to Cameron rather than Trump-lite way.
The US has multiple times that and see who they found.
You seem very wedded to the idea that the position Labour is taking now, is immutable and forever. I expect things to evolve when Labour is in power, albeit within limits, because it will have to, although I don't expect a referendum or anything. The difference is Labour is not ideologically opposed to the EU in the same way as the Tories, or, outside of not re-opening old wounds, not specifically trying to woo Brexit voters. That does open up some space, I believe.
She's an habitual liar and nothing but trouble. Why do people suddenly believe her because she's joined Labour?
If voters can swing wildly in five years from one party to another , they can just as easily swing back.
The cream rises to the top.
Inevitably there has to be a change but it won't come during the course of Starmer leading the party. A referendum won't happen in any near future. The Uk have got a lot of changing to do before they get close to being conisidered eligible to rejoin. But until the UK actually understand what they've voted for, especially the politicians , especially including a Labour leader then they are so far away and drifting further.
Because what matters is what she's told Labour. If she says she is going to stand down, and that was a condition of her joining, then if she changes her mind, she can be expelled. I don't see the problem here.
Yes, technically they can but usually there are reasons why that sort of thing happens, and I am not sure your argument supports the type of swing you are talking about.
Do we know that was a condition? Don't see the point of her moving across from her point of view.
The reasons are that Starmer has said he'll make Brexit work and stop the boats to attract Tory and Brexit voters. When he obviously doesn't - you can guess what might happen.
Well sour cream is hugely popular in the US so that sort of makes sense
Well sour cream is hugely popular in the US so that sort of makes sense
I was thinking curdled.
Paul that cannot be true, you mention it all the time and have never let it drop!
Starmer's crew have got those private water company donations and non-jobs after they leave the Commons to think about.
The no-tax bit is egregious.
These are not the same things.
To be fair, that’s a bit daft.
All parties education policy is ‘Educate children’. It’s how the policy is enacted that differentiates political parties.
The way to stop small boat crossings is quite clearly to ‘Stop the gangs’.
What Starmer sure as feck can’t say right now is ‘We will open legal routes’. He can ONLY discuss how to fix the Tory chaos. It’s how he’ll get elected.
I have zero doubts that in his first term we will once again have a kinder, functioning asylum system. One that is boring and doesn’t dominate the day to day news agenda.
The last frame is that fecking cnut smirking, so fitting.
He's smirking because he absolutely doesn't give a shit.