Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Oh no. Starmer if he doesn't have a majority might do a deal with... Lib Dems.

This stuff is always said, but nothing happens.

The issue isn't that Starmer hates council houses or whatever. It's that he's wary of people thinking "You lot can't afford that, so taxes up or inflation?". It would actually suit him a lot if there was more of this stuff in devolved assemblies (with their own borrowing powers, of course). As for arms to Israel, no reason not to ban it, but we don't really sell any. I think he can probably absord Sadiq calling for it.

Yeah, Starmer. You supported all this. Not complicit in, or failed to condemn sufficiently. "Supported it all", Cranks.

Of course people are reacting with outrage to this

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-10/sta ... nda-policy

Sir Keir made it clear earlier that it is right the UK protects people from persecution - but he would not commit to increasing the number of safe routes from other countries to stop people making dangerous and expensive journeys to get to safety.

"I don't think safe routes is the answer to the vile trade that is being run to put people into small boats, I actually think breaking down the gangs is," he told ITV News.

"But look, where there have been conflicts in places like Ukraine, then yes, we Labour and the government were calling for and put in place schemes to allow people to come to this country from Ukraine. The same in relation to Afghanistan and Hong Kong."

..."the answer...breaking down the gangs"?

You'd think that someone who has done a spot of lawyering in their time would understand that organised crime is always an opportunity-fuelled response to a given situation.

Still, Ming vase, etc etc.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 9:16 pm
You'd think that someone who has done a spot of lawyering in their time would understand that organised crime is always an opportunity-fuelled response to a given situation.

Of course Starmer understands that, it's obvious and you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to know that. The issue is that not all of the gaslit electorate understand it.

Also it's not like breaking the gangs is a bad thing.

It is not a question of good or bad.

Rather, you can break as many gangs as you like, there will always be eager and willing successors. Accessible alternatives to the current options is the way to reduce and even eradicate the business case.

This ludicrous War on Drugs provides compelling evidence of that.

I think the way to see the plan is as a purely practical thing to reduce what's seen as a very specific political issue. It's people crossing the channel in small boats. It's not stopping people smuggling into Europe, or anything so broad.

Can some combination of security and processing in France reduce that number? I don't really see why not. The small boats are a pretty recent thing. Will people still want to flee to the UK on boats? Yes, of course. But if that's made much more difficult, it's not impossible that fewer will come to the UK specifically.

That's not really like the drugs market. The market here is people from outside the UK trying to get into the UK. The market for drugs is people inside the UK wanting drugs brought in. It's pretty much inevitable that someone finds a way to satisfy the demand in the case of the drugs. Much less so with the people.

If you provide legal processing centres then ‘the gangs’ (anyone who purchases a boat) technically would have been smashed.
The big money is setting someone up with accommodation and black market work after entering the country on a tourist or business visas then absconding. There’s no dramatic footage to illustrate this problem so it doesn’t trigger mass neurosis in Ashfield or Swansea.

I think legal processing is likely to be fairly small scale. I can't exactly see a centre being set up next to the Calais Jungle, with "Britain This Way!" signs. More likely that they do the minimum to get cooperation from the French.

Nobody gets on a flimsy dinghy - refugee or pilot - and sails across the channel out of choice. I think Tubby has made a very good and often overlooked point - who is picking these people up and to what end?

Smuggling gangs do what they do for the price they charge based on demand and risk. If the boat sinks, that's the pilot dead as well as the refugees, and the money will go in part to the pilot's family to keep them sweet. It's the same as organised crime always has been - in the words of former Mafioso Henry Hill, "a police department for wiseguys, protection for people who can't go to the cops".

I suspect that there are quite a few people who don't mind a bit of illegal immigration if it keeps their payrolls manageable. They may not like the sight of boats landing on beaches, or dead kids in the surf, but they don't mind the profits it can bring.

Although the right-wing/Tory narrative on that will be; the only people who give them jobs are family, so they are all adding to the same "not wanted here" line. Once ones over they'll all be over

Processing centres ultimately have to be international, including participation of safe nations outside of Europe in order to share the problem. The refugee can make a strong case to go to a country of their choice (family, friends, language etc) but relocating somewhere safe is what’s most important.

A processing centre in a safe non-European country would be a safe route in effect, wouldn't it? I think that's been pretty much ruled out, aside from Ukraine. I don't think it would happen with Moldova or Georgia even.

Processing in France is more likely to mean the French Government tells the UK Government that they have a bunch of people who aren't claiming asylum in France but want to claim it in Britain where they say they have links. The UK Government then picks up as few as they can get away with.

David Evans has his critics, but this is a contrast with the Mandelson obnoxious bollocks about Greens the other day. I don't think Green votes will be a particular problem to Labour- who cares if Greens win Bristol Central? Might be better to go in with the policy they have now and then spend more in power now you've "got growth going" or whatever.

Yeah, Starmer! Everyone's heard the one about your toolmaker Dad, so shut up!

Or not. We don't know how the campaign will go, but I'd say there's some scope for voters to take to him more than they have so far.

Cooking Salmon, what a monster

https://x.com/bertnews/status/1792182974676349073

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 7:08 pm Cooking Salmon, what a monster

https://x.com/bertnews/status/1792182974676349073

Perhaps Captain Beefheart’s finest album (Someone’s already posted the John Peel pic)

How come when I linked to twitter the forum wouldn't display the tweet?