Exactly, which is why it's likely Starmer enacts the same type of policies to stay in power and he's proposing to take power.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Exactly, which is why it's likely Starmer enacts the same type of policies to stay in power and he's proposing to take power.
To be fair Starmer has been saying the problem is the speed of the asylum claims. The problem is loads of civil servants got made redundant after the financial crisis and have never really been replaced.
My wife’s visa renewal took almost a year from when she applied.
1. He is literally saying he isn't going to do those policies.
2. He will have to continue to appease the base elements of society and the media to keep them onside, and to be re-elected.
It is such a ridiculous and persistent narrative that I have to ignore everything that Starmer says and does, and simply vote for Labour because secretly they are definitely planning to do all this amazing shit.
The plan is:
1) campaign on tory (not-that-lite) policies
2) do amazing leftist stuff for 3 years or so
3) campaign on repealing all that amazing stuff to get re-elected
That is where the gaslighting has happened though, as people who are trafficked across the Channel aren’t arriving illegally, in the exact same way that women trafficked across borders for sex gangs don’t arrive illegally.
They are the victims of BOTH the lack of ‘safe routes’ and the people-traffickers. It’s the job of our HO to find out if they have viable reasons for seeking asylum.
There are viable answers to stopping this and it involves the exploitation that we control - the safe routes issue.
No, the REAL problem is getting those who have been refused asylum out of the country faster... Apparently anything other than that is leftist nonsense.
And that’s where you need an appropriately staffed, funded and efficient HO, so that more than a poxy 1-2% of applications get processed a year.
But that’s too much like hard work for the people who’ve been in charge for 13yrs.
Sorry, what vote will they have once the labour party are in power? Unless you think all decision are done by referendum?
Why? They don't work?
If you actually improve lives, improve the economy and things are going well, how are you going to be unelected?
This is possibly the weirdest interpretation I've seen.
It's an accurate summary of what you just said. Promise anything to get power and then break all pledges and do the opposite.
If that's your thinking now, does it not apply to the subsequent election? Or are Labour having broken all their pledges going to magically convince everyone they can be trusted again?
It's a sure fire way to a one term government.
It's extremely weird indeed, so can you clarify how they'd get re-elected if they enact policies when in government that they had to hide and lie about to get elected in the first place?
I was talking about re-election.
Because he won't improve lives, in my opinion.
Your whole thought process here is so bizarre. But let's assume that Starmer does have loads of great ideas that he simply can't state at the moment because both elements of the public and the press will castigate him, leading him to lose the election. What will simply happen is he will then unveil them after winning the election and get a massive slagging off from the press for being a) a lefty and b) having no conviction. Then he will U turn. And that is the best outcome here, the one that actually assumed Starmer does have these policies.
Hope I'm wrong and you're right, to be honest. But even if that is the case, that scenario relies on Starmer ripping up his election promises.... which might not be ideal also.
All this discussion is based on the premise that the electorate is sane and logical. Large part of it is definitely not
Which is why they would be hiding all these great policies in the first place. The whole reasoning is insane.
So why is he proposing them now?
Again, I think everyone in here really overestimates the publics capacity for in-depth thought.
"Oh no, we actually built ten hospitals, reduced GP waiting times, and lowered inflation - shit, they're going to turf me out because I didn't send immigrants to Rwanda.
They don't hide their policies ffs, they're in their manifesto, you're talking about when Starmer is asked in a vox pop or interview what he would do.
Why?
Because they're popular with the morons in this country/make it harder for the right-wing press to vilify him.
So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier
Could let them on passenger trains through the chunnel too I guess. British politicians set themselves up to fail when they said the boats need to stop.
It's yet another prime example of their stupidity and inability to think things through in the bigger picture. They saw a dinghy or two and thought to themselves that's an easy promise, we rule the waves. All while knowing feck all about fecking anything, true Tory style.
Nah, just people don't understand how to win elections.So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier
This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.
Logic suggests therefore that whatever he's proposing in order to win in 2024 is likely to be what he tries to enact whilst in government and also what he campaigns on for success in 2029.
It would be a very strange tactic in terms of re-election for him to covet and ultimately win dozens of (currently Tory) seats based on a strict immigration policy, fiscal conservatism, no EU single market / CU and a modest green agenda; but then for him to liberalise the immigration system, join the customs union and go on a green spending spree once elected (and then be booted out in 2029).
So he just keeps enacting policies that don't work to appease the public, to be reelected, so he can enact more policies that don't work?
That's circular mate.
You get elected, you impact lives in a positive way. People will be too busy being happy at not waiting 8 weeks for a GP appointment, or two years for a hip operation to be annoyed you didn't do some random policy point you said you would, in an interview, five years ago.
I also think you can create so much good stuff while in government that it would be too much work to dismantle it and it becomes the new status quo. Remember for example the Tories disagreed with minimum wage, yet when they got in, they didn't repeal it, it's still here.
You honestly think if you put in policies that make the NHS work like it did in 08, the Tories are going to campaign to make it......worse? That makes zero sense.
Agree with this. Also, the policies shape the electorate just as much as the electorate shape the policies.
For example, for years the oil industry and the automotive industries have lobbied governments to ensure car is first, and that has brought an induced demand of high car ownership, even in central London, where you virtually don't need a car, with few exceptions.
Now that green policies are more prominent, you can see that Sunak eyes car owners as one of the last bastions of voter groups he can win over. This wouldn't have been a thing if the british government didn't force a managed decline in public transport for decades.
So, there are 91,047 asylum seekers in the UK. They have brought a barge at great expense to house 500 of them. Tell me how it isn't an overpriced 'Offal Tube'?
My view is he'll enact policies that are seen as tough on immigration and he will be fiscally coversative in order to keep the voters he will win next year on side in order to win again in 2029.
I don't think he'll: re-nationalise industries, abolish Universal credit, open legal asylum routes, re-enter the Single Market, abolish tuition fee's etc.
On that point let's try to be a bit more specific, rather than talking in generalaties. Which of the below do you believe Starmer will action?
- Do you believe that he will apply to re-enter the EU Custom's Union or Single Market in his first term?
- Do you believe that he will reintroduce free movement of people across the EU?
- Do you believe that he will spend £28b extra on Green policies in his first full financial year in office, or indeed by the end of his first term?
- Do you believe that he will set up legal routes for asylum seekers across Africa, Asia and/or South America?
- Do you believe that he will enact policies reflecting his previous views on self-ID?
- Do you believe that he will abolish the two-child limit benefits cap in his first term?
- Do you believe that he will abolish the benefit's cap?
- Do you believe that he will re-nationalise Energy, Rail, Water and/or Royal Mail?
- Do you believe that he will roll back private involvement in the NHS?
- Do you believe that he will abolish Universal Credit?
- Do you believe that he will abolish University tuition fee's?
- Do you believe that he will ensure full childcare provision until primary school age?
- Do you believe that he will introduce a tax on tech companies?
- Do you believe that he will roll back on the oil exploration licences granted by Sunak?
- Do you believe that he will increase income tax on the top 5% of earners?
Answered in bold.
I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes, who also traffic many who are not genuine asylum seekers, then they are taking part in an illegal and unsafe activity.
The fact that there is no alternative, should receive sympathetic consideration, but still it does not make the act of people trafficking in small boats either safe or legal and any government has to solve that problem first, if only because the media and the vast majority of the public demand it. Further more the likelihood of a 'proper' search for alternatives being found, will not receive any urgent consideration until the arrival of people, asylum seekers or whoever, on small boats is stopped.
There are methods and those with full identity paperwork and proof of the dangers they face and the persecution they fear that makes them legitimate asylum seekers, should use these methods, but we all know these methods are cumbersome and take too long and so people head to the people traffickers and illegal transportation.
Any government in the UK will have to stop the boats before they get public support to look for alternatives.
I agree, there are better solutions, safer and quicker, but the government, any government cannot undertake such alternatives until the issue of criminal gangs illegally trafficking 'legal asylum seekers' along with others who have no such claim, is ended.
I do believe the present government is making this a bigger issue than it should be, for political purposes, but anyone who thinks a change of government will see the small boats issue accepted, is living in dream land. End the small boats issue then there is a way forward to be found
Any trafficking of people across borders, without due process is, illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal because of who they are, but how they have chosen to arrive, by paying criminal gangs to take them. Similarly women who have chosen/agreed to be trafficked over borders and who are paying for this are taking part in an illegal activity, if they are forced into illegal trafficking routes, then they have been kidnapped victims and have not chosen that route of their own free will.
The majority of those answers would be similar of Sunak, no?
Your answers certainly don't seem to be someone who's leaving behind a Tory-light manifesto in favour of great positive change as soon as he's elected.
Braverman has even admitted that there are very few legal routes available, for 3 countries I believe. Even the relatives of British citizens trying to flee Sudan were refused.
It's a game and the public have fallen for it, yet again, they always do because the government know what triggers them.
The small boats are not going to stop. The illegal trafficking gangs are not going to disappear. Putting an asylum seeker in a barge or to some distant land is not a deterrent to a trafficker. What do they care? How are the government or Labour or any other idiots going to stop them?
Legal accessible routes is the only way.
You are still insisting on the legal ID, do you think Ukrainians whose homes were bombed had all their ID. You don't know, I don't know. It's yet more government propaganda. Would anyone believe what the government say. Obviously many do because it's what they want to hear.
They’ve literally handed the opposition a baseball bat to beat them with. The opposition has looked at it as if it’s a spoon.
They have a massive mission critical pledge to STOP THE BOATS. They’ve literally bought a Fcuking boat.
There are no means to satire there. Short of buying Fire stations a bunch of flamethrowers, they’re surely got no lower to sink.
Go and Look at the actual data on the number of asylum seekers arriving via criminal gangs. It’s vanishingly small.
You’re basing your point of position on eating a shit sandwich, presented to you by a lying chef.
Meh, I think the requests you put forward were utopian and naive. No one, not any government would be enable to enact some of those, let alone all of those in four to five years. I also don't believe Sunak would do any of the things I posted.
Some were random and niche, others seemed vague.
The vast majority were Starmer's own positions over the last few years in truth.
Yes, and he's realised they're likely to not be elected if they keep spouting these unachievable and easily derided policies