Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Red-Soldier]

]

What if they dont have a 'legitimate' right to be here?

 

[Kenny's Jacket]

 

Thats only half my point, Braverman, whos seems to have grown in popularity with some on here (not you Andy)
has criminalised arriving by boat, so regardless of legitimacym they wont have legitimacy

Cooper to the best of my knowledge has suggested she wont reverse that policy.   

[TSC]

Thats only half my point, Braverman, whos seems to have grown in popularity with some on here (not you Andy)
has criminalised arriving by boat, so regardless of legitimacym they wont have legitimacy

Cooper to the best of my knowledge has suggested she wont reverse that policy.   

I may have missed posts, but which poster/s on here is Braverman popular with?

[tubby]

I may have missed posts, but which poster/s on here is Braverman popular with?

I am also interesting in this information because from what I can see, literally everyone on RAWK hates her guts.  And with good reason.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I may have missed posts, but which poster/s on here is Braverman popular with?

Wanting to ban protests (not this thread)

[thaddeus]

Wanting to ban protests (not this thread)

I know they're pretty much two sides of the same fascism coin but people can hate Braverman's immigration policies whilst endorsing her anti-protest policies.  For what it's worth I think both are horrible and in keeping with everything that she spouts.

From the Labour perspective though they will likely need to find a position that offers fairness to potential migrants but is also quite restrictive if they want to remain electable.  Climate change and global insecurity are only adding to the push factors for migration and the UK is still a desirable destination.  Much of this thread has been about home building and that's something that only has a chance of happening in a managed way in the finite space of the UK if the government have some handle on population size.

[PatriotScouser]

I am also interesting in this information because from what I can see, literally everyone on RAWK hates her guts.  And with good reason.

Everyone on RAWK does hate her guts. But apparently because those protestors who've gone over the edge (see my post in the other thread) should face the consequences of their actions, I apparently want to ban protests and thusly in favour of Cruella.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Thats only half my point, Braverman, whos seems to have grown in popularity with some on here (not you Andy)
has criminalised arriving by boat, so regardless of legitimacym they wont have legitimacy

Cooper to the best of my knowledge has suggested she wont reverse that policy.

If I'd understood Labour's policy on this correctly...

At the moment the Tories have ripped up all of their agreements with the EU. The refugees in the camps in Calais have no legitimate means of getting to the UK. Furthermore we now can't relocate people who make it across the channel back to France - only to their country of origin having refused an asylum application.

Labour would enter into an agreement with the EU whereby we would accept a quota of refugees and process their asylum claims (giving them a legitimate means of crossing the channel) in return for being able to return people who arrive illegally back to France.

FWIW I don't think that goes far enough - for me what needs to happen is for a system to be set up whereby the refugees in Calais can make asylum applications for the UK whilst still in France (similar to the offer that was extended to refugees from Ukraine). In an ideal world I'd like to see the UK accept their fair share of refugees compared to other European countries. But obviously those kinds of ideas are pretty risky electorally and Labour are playing it safe.

That said, I would agree with Andy in that it is appropriate to have a discussion of how many immigrants the country's public services can handle; how we want our immigration system to work to manage the numbers and how we deal with people who choose to arrive in the country outside of the 'legitimate' routes. It seems to me to be a pretty utopian position to say that we can avoid all difficult choices and decisions re. immigration by simply allowing everyone into the country. 

[Dr. Beaker]

Everyone on RAWK does hate her guts. But apparently because those protestors who've gone over the edge (see my post in the other thread) should face the consequences of their actions, I apparently want to ban protests and thusly in favour of Cruella.

You're a Braverman than me.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You're a Braverman than me.

[Nobby Reserve]

If I'd understood Labour's policy on this correctly...

At the moment the Tories have ripped up all of their agreements with the EU. The refugees in the camps in Calais have no legitimate means of getting to the UK. Furthermore we now can't relocate people who make it across the channel back to France - only to their country of origin having refused an asylum application.

Labour would enter into an agreement with the EU whereby we would accept a quota of refugees and process their asylum claims (giving them a legitimate means of crossing the channel) in return for being able to return people who arrive illegally back to France.

FWIW I don't think that goes far enough - for me what needs to happen is for a system to be set up whereby the refugees in Calais can make asylum applications for the UK whilst still in France (similar to the offer that was extended to refugees from Ukraine). In an ideal world I'd like to see the UK accept their fair share of refugees compared to other European countries. But obviously those kinds of ideas are pretty risky electorally and Labour are playing it safe.

That said, I would agree with Andy in that it is appropriate to have a discussion of how many immigrants the country's public services can handle; how we want our immigration system to work to manage the numbers and how we deal with people who choose to arrive in the country outside of the 'legitimate' routes. It seems to me to be a pretty utopian position to say that we can avoid all difficult choices and decisions re. immigration by simply allowing everyone into the country.

The 'difficult conversation' with regards to immigration that nobody outside the Tories seems willing to acknowledge is that the asylum system is broken due to a large proportion (majority?) of those claiming it aren't genuinely seeking asylum (in the sense that most of us understand that to be)

They are migrants from poor and corrupt countries, looking for a new life in a country they believe would give them a much greater chance of achieving that. The vast majority of these are young men and deliberately don't have any ID.

I don't for one second blame them and hate how they're demonised for doing what many British in the same position would want to do.

They only want to use the asylum process to gain initial entry into the UK, then disappear into the black economy.

The problem is that they swell the numbers of asylum seekers to a level that raises disquiet (at best) amongst a big chunk of the UK population. And that is exploited by the Tories and further-right, assisted by the RWM whipping-up that anger.

It ruins it for genuine asylum seekers fleeing from war or persecution.

[lobsterboy]

What happens when they fiddle the next election and all protests are banned and you can get sent to jail for "undermining" Britain?

[Kenny's Jacket]

They cant wait to appeal to a certain demographic

[Red-Soldier]

They cant wait to appeal to a certain demographic

To be fair, Labour have never been great on law and order.  I've always known them to be pretty draconian.

[LuverlyRita]

We've got the Daily Fail, The Express, The Times, GBNews and 1,001 other sources for sticking the boot into Labour. It's all a bit fucking boring now seeing people that should be opposing the Daily Fail agreeing with them all the time.

If Labour get in with a big majority, what I would like to see them do is tackle our media. It's in their own interests for reasons you've outlined. It's also in the interests of The UK PLC. The fact that our major media titles are owned by overseas investors who pay no UK tax is beyond bizarre and leaves us vulnerable to hostile players. Murdoch and his ilk have been dripping poison into the UK for far too long and it's about time OFCOM was fit for purpose and given serious teeth.

[Nobby Reserve]

To be fair, Labour have never been great on law and order.  I've always known them to be pretty draconian.

Always seem to go for the wrong targets, though

Let's see if they go after all the chiselling Tory c*nts who made a bundle from COVID contracts. Or the tax-dodging super-rich.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

]

What if they dont have a 'legitimate' right to be here?

Well if they don't have a legitimate right to be here then they should be dealt with humanely and appropriately.

It's a bit of a strange situation at present because due to the batshit-crazy way the Tories are 'running' the country, it seems that no immigrants are here 'legitimately'

That clearly needs to change, but also law and order is an important part of any society and country. If someone breaks the law then you would expect that some action would happen as a consequence - hopefully something along the lines of rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Immigration is a whole different kettle of fish, but one that many people are concerned about for a host of reasons (And this is people on the 'left', the 'centre' and the 'right' - but probably for different reasons)

It's not an easy subject to deal with and the Right-wing media and the Tories have made it toxic.

The first step is to put into place a system where legitimate immigrants and refugees can be processed and handled. That's not happening at the moment.

The second step is to look at what can be done if people fail the conditions to enter the country.

The third step is to look at what can be done in the case someone is here illegally, under false pretences or whatever.


There aren't just 'immigrants', there are, like many things, many different types - illegal, legal, economic, asylum seekers from war and persecution and personal danger, those that have aided the UK and are now in danger, those that have married into familes, those that were born here and probably another hundred 'tags'

For me, personally, the main thing is for us to have fair and just laws around this and a fair and just immigration service that handles and reviews cases speedily, fairly, constantly and then have clear steps of what can be done to help the people, regardless of their status. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with respect in my opinion.


It's not an easy thing and the dismantling of the system by those tossers makes it much harder.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Well if they don't have a legitimate right to be here then they should be dealt with humanely and appropriately.

It's a bit of a strange situation at present because due to the batshit-crazy way the Tories are 'running' the country, it seems that no immigrants are here 'legitimately'

That clearly needs to change, but also law and order is an important part of any society and country. If someone breaks the law then you would expect that some action would happen as a consequence - hopefully something along the lines of rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Immigration is a whole different kettle of fish, but one that many people are concerned about for a host of reasons (And this is people on the 'left', the 'centre' and the 'right' - but probably for different reasons)

It's not an easy subject to deal with and the Right-wing media and the Tories have made it toxic.

The first step is to put into place a system where legitimate immigrants and refugees can be processed and handled. That's not happening at the moment.

The second step is to look at what can be done if people fail the conditions to enter the country.

The third step is to look at what can be done in the case someone is here illegally, under false pretences or whatever.


There aren't just 'immigrants', there are, like many things, many different types - illegal, legal, economic, asylum seekers from war and persecution and personal danger, those that have aided the UK and are now in danger, those that have married into familes, those that were born here and probably another hundred 'tags'

For me, personally, the main thing is for us to have fair and just laws around this and a fair and just immigration service that handles and reviews cases speedily, fairly, constantly and then have clear steps of what can be done to help the people, regardless of their status. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with respect in my opinion.


It's not an easy thing and the dismantling of the system by those tossers makes it much harder.

Top post mate 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If Labour get in with a big majority, what I would like to see them do is tackle our media. It's in their own interests for reasons you've outlined. It's also in the interests of The UK PLC. The fact that our major media titles are owned by overseas investors who pay no UK tax is beyond bizarre and leaves us vulnerable to hostile players. Murdoch and his ilk have been dripping poison into the UK for far too long and it's about time OFCOM was fit for purpose and given serious teeth.

Yeah, the current media situation in the UK is dire. We have more and more questionable sources of 'news' that either stretch the truth or outright lie.

There should be some comeback from this. If this genie isn't stuffed back into the bottle, then things will clearly get worse every year.

We already have loads of people that seemingly believe absolute rubbish because 'they read/saw it here.'  When you pull them up on it and ask them to explain, they tend to get very red and angry and splutter a lot. This is because they have, seemingly, been told what to think and told what is true, but since it's fabrication, the detail and the facts are missing.

If you think something and then realise that you can't back it up in any way, then that's not a place where you are then going to go on and have a decent discussion about it.

Most of it seems to be around slogans and 'common sense' and 'what people know, but aren't allowed to say any more'

[Nobby Reserve]

We already have loads of people that seemingly believe absolute rubbish because 'they read/saw it here.'  When you pull them up on it and ask them to explain, they tend to get very red and angry and splutter a lot. This is because they have, seemingly, been told what to think and told what is true, but since it's fabrication, the detail and the facts are missing.

Like being asked "How, precisely, do you think Labour would make things better once elected?"

 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Like being asked "How, precisely, do you think Labour would make things better once elected?"

 

Well you and others have asked me and others what we thought and we said what we thought. Not sure why you have a problem with that.

You think something different based on no evidence that I can see.

I'm basing what I think on what Labour did when they got into power after the Tories last time and the previous times Labour have been in power compared to what the Tories did when they were in power.

[TSC]

Like being asked "How, precisely, do you think Labour would make things better once elected?"

 

Simply by not doing what the Tories have done for 13 years will suffice for starters

[Nobby Reserve]

Simply by not doing what the Tories have done for 13 years will suffice for starters

And you think that will happen? On policy, I mean.

[TSC]

And you think that will happen? On policy, I mean.

Yes.  It’s the lowest of low bars of course but polls show the country thinks same.

[PatriotScouser]

Like being asked "How, precisely, do you think Labour would make things better once elected?"

 

I think from what the Party has said on housing, transport, environment, education and healthcare that they will make the country a fairer place for all.

Social Mobility is the thing that underpins that all, just like the Blair and Brown Governments.

[Red Beret]

 

Should be the new House of Commons. Or move the Tory Party HQ there.

[stewil007]

Should be the new House of Commons. Or move the Tory Party HQ there.

Hopefully after the next General Election, the tory mps can be housed in the support boat to the left

[Red Beret]

We all know there's a big difference between what needs to be done and the how is it going to be done. But I guess it all comes back to getting the economy back on track so the country can actually afford to take the measures needed to address things like cost of living, financial inequality, child poverty etc.

I'm sure everyone has their own personal wishlists. For myself, the Tories have gone full "we're coming to get you". I imagine many people don't feel safe from their own government. The sense of relief by just having not the Tories in charge will be palpable, at least for the first few months.

[lobsterboy]

Starmer left Rat Face Fishy Ballsack looking broken today.
No one can seriously tell me we wouldn't be better off under him.
Or that he is somehow the same as them.

[Red-Soldier]

Starmer left Rat Face Fishy Ballsack looking broken today.
No one can seriously tell me we wouldn't be better off under him.
Or that he is somehow the same as them.

We would be and he isn't.

There's going to be a collective sigh of relief, when they're finally booted out!

[Nobby Reserve]

We would be and he isn't.

I've not seen anyone say otherwise.

It's just the degree of 'better off' when the bar is already so low.

[Red-Soldier]

I've not seen anyone say otherwise.

It's just the degree of 'better off' when the bar is already so low.

No, they haven't.

We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

[stewil007]

I've not seen anyone say otherwise.

It's just the degree of 'better off' when the bar is already so low.

when youre starving,  a mouldy biscuit is manna from heaven.

any improvement is an improvement.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

when youre starving,  a mouldy biscuit is manna from heaven.

any improvement is an improvement.

There is the difference, I suppose.

I just literally want the best for the poorest and weakest and our services across the board to get proper funding and reverse the damage done by the Tories.

Others have other goals which are Socialist, but not necessarily to do with the wants and needs of those that I always feel Labour should be looking at.

You could probably label them 'causes' - I've mentioned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs before and I think (Well for me) that it's a good place to start.

'Socialist Causes' may by the pinnacle of Socialist endeavours, but they require a solid base to build them on. If someone is homeless or starving or sick or dying then those ideals might be a very, very dim and unimportant dream to them and probably completely irrelevant to their lives.

[oldfordie]

We are our own worst enemy.
So theres no reason to believe things won't dramatically improve under a Labour government, under the same logic then things must have only got slightly worse since the Torys took power.
I suppose things only slightly improved when Labour took over from Thatchers government as well, lets face it, they are never given any credit for the good they did by the idealists, they only get shit for PFI and Iraq.
I think most people would be happy if Labour could take us back to pre 2010. give them time and they will do more than that. change the tax system, get a grip of the Nationalised industrys who have screwed us all.
We know what will happen after Labours first term in office, the people who are trying to run them down now will ignore their achievements and attack them for what they didn't do. certain to happen as it will be very easy to do as it will be impossible for Labour to repair the damage this government have done in just 5 yrs.

[Nobby Reserve]

There is the difference, I suppose.

I just literally want the best for the poorest and weakest and our services across the board to get proper funding and reverse the damage done by the Tories.

Others have other goals which are Socialist, but not necessarily to do with the wants and needs of those that I always feel Labour should be looking at.

You could probably label them 'causes' - I've mentioned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs before and I think (Well for me) that it's a good place to start.

'Socialist Causes' may by the pinnacle of Socialist endeavours, but they require a solid base to build them on. If someone is homeless or starving or sick or dying then those ideals might be a very, very dim and unimportant dream to them and probably completely irrelevant to their lives.

Andy, I'm absolutely sure what the two of us want for society would be a pretty identical match.

I'm not some communist revolutionary, you know!!

I just perhaps look differently at the reasons for society's ills and why we have poverty, and want to address the root causes rather than tackle the symptoms.

Take the utilities of water, electricity and gas. I want them nationalised. Not because of an ideological obsession, but because I see that every year the amount of money leeched out of these companies - in the form of dividends to shareholders and massive executive/director pay packages - amounts to literally £billions.

Instead of that money going into the pockets of the already-rich, wouldn't it be better if that money remained within state-owned entities, which could cut prices for all as well as providing subsidies for the worst off or those struggling?

I could bore everyone with pages of other examples, but I won't (and don't want to incite John C's ire by ranting about the amount of tax that is dodged by the super-rich  )

I think the country could and should be much fairer and I'm sure you do to.

[Sheer Magnetism]

We are our own worst enemy.
So theres no reason to believe things won't dramatically improve under a Labour government, under the same logic then things must have only got slightly worse since the Torys took power.

So, we now have the option of voting for a Labour government made up of people who were there in the 2000's, who will use a time machine to transport us all back to the 2000's? Because that's the only way this logic makes any sense.

[oldfordie]

So, we now have the option of voting for a Labour government made up of people who were there in the 2000's, who will use a time machine to transport us all back to the 2000's? Because that's the only way this logic makes any sense.

What exactly is your point? theres no point voting for Labour as they will not be able to repair the damage this government have done by taking us back to where we were in 2010.
The reason I brought up 2010 was that was the standard we should judge the Torys by, have things got far worse since then, do I really have to make a argument to prove things have got dramatically worse in every way possible.
10s millions more in poverty, kids living in poverty without a home. NHS. Services. schools. homeless are in a terrible state. National debt tripled leaving the country skint. incompetent government who have no idea how to solve these problems turning to cultural wars which makes things even worse yet we are told theres no reason to think Labour won't improve things much, that doesn't make sense. the Torys took us to where we are now not Labour so why attach any of the blame to Labour.

Improvements don't happen by accident. it's having good intentions that matters, if the intention is to actually help people which is what Labour are all about then things will improve dramatically. Labour have 2 things going for them from day 1 to make a difference, Competency and good intentions, they are exactly what's needed right now.

[Schmarn]

What exactly is your point? theres no point voting for Labour as they will not be able to repair the damage this government have done by taking us back to where we were in 2010.
The reason I brought up 2010 was that was the standard we should judge the Torys by, have things got far worse since then, do I really have to make a argument to prove things have got dramatically worse in every way possible.
10s millions more in poverty, kids living in poverty without a home. NHS. Services. schools. homeless are in a terrible state. National debt tripled leaving the country skint. incompetent government who have no idea how to solve these problems turning to cultural wars which makes things even worse yet we are told theres no reason to think Labour won't improve things much, that doesn't make sense. the Torys took us to where we are now not Labour so why attach any of the blame to Labour.

Improvements don't happen by accident. it's having good intentions that matters, if the intention is to actually help people which is what Labour are all about then things will improve dramatically. Labour have 2 things going for them from day 1 to make a difference, Competency and good intentions, they are exactly what's needed right now.

Correct. One of the greatest dangers to democracy is the trite lie that “they’re all the same” which leads to people not bothering to vote. It’s deliberately pushed by the right wing media to persuade the working class not to vote. But you can be damn sure that the Tory core will all vote. It’s depressing but not surprising to see intelligent, progressive folk repeating this crap.

People have very good reasons for disliking Blair (Iraq, PFI, being smug etc) but it’s unanswerable that their sound management of the economy meant that billions of pounds more than was thought were spent on health and education with low unemployment, low interest rates and low inflation benefitting everyone. Not to mention a minimum wage, devolution and peace in Northern Ireland.  But sure he’s just a Tory (eye-roll). Of course that’s anathema to the far left who continue to drive their special brand of intellectual purity which coincidentally tends to lead to perpetual opposition and huge Tory majorities (see 1983 and 2019).

I won’t pretend to be wowed by Starmer but frankly it’s time we had some dull competency in place of the circus we’ve had over the past 13 years. 

[Sheer Magnetism]

What exactly is your point? theres no point voting for Labour as they will not be able to repair the damage this government have done by taking us back to where we were in 2010.
The reason I brought up 2010 was that was the standard we should judge the Torys by, have things got far worse since then, do I really have to make a argument to prove things have got dramatically worse in every way possible.
10s millions more in poverty, kids living in poverty without a home. NHS. Services. schools. homeless are in a terrible state. National debt tripled leaving the country skint. incompetent government who have no idea how to solve these problems turning to cultural wars which makes things even worse yet we are told theres no reason to think Labour won't improve things much, that doesn't make sense. the Torys took us to where we are now not Labour so why attach any of the blame to Labour.

Improvements don't happen by accident. it's having good intentions that matters, if the intention is to actually help people which is what Labour are all about then things will improve dramatically. Labour have 2 things going for them from day 1 to make a difference, Competency and good intentions, they are exactly what's needed right now.

My point was that the world has moved on from 13 years ago, and Labour and the Conservatives are to some extent different parties, so claiming that: "Saying not much would change if Labour took charge now is like saying not much changed when the Tories took over" is nonsensical. You may as well be citing Bevan's government or Thatcher's (which you actually did, looking down).

Would a Labour government be an improvement? Obviously. Will they actually bring in policies that can counteract all the harm caused since then? Starmer and Reeves themselves have said they don't want to spend to do so, have ruled out taxing the wealthy and most of the policies they've announced have either been surface changes or given up after a few months. Let's see how long the GB Energy plan lasts - I suspect it'll be either heavily watered down or backtracked completely before the election.

None of this is a reason not to vote Labour, simply a reaction to reality - not fantasies about how Starmer might be secretly left wing and will start being radical once Labour gets into power, but the reality of what he says and how he acts.