Keir Starmer

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

If you've decided that numbers are irrelevant, then you still need to explain to the public how you're going to build a city the size of Birmingham every single year to accommodate the ones coming in.

That's such a classic Tory/UKIP/BNP trope; you may as well go the whole hog and say "fuck off, we're full".

 

You're smart enough to know that this country is big enough and rich enough to accommodate 1% annual population growth. And with the economic benefits of immigration (provided they are distributed more efficiently and equitably than they have been in recent decades) we could afford even more.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2023#:~:text=1.,1.0% since mid-2022.

[Bjornebye]

20 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Are you dense? Just to repeat, I wasn't the one who first brought up the figure of 1 million a year, the figure we are discussing. Take it up with them if you have an issue with it.

Are you really ginger in real life? Explains the highlights I guess. Nothing against gingers I love em. Especially that Irish bird from Patriot Games. Fuck me she’s amazing. 

[Engineman Hicks]

I’m always hesitant to comment on political stuff on here but I think an absolute focus on numbers is a bit if a cul de sac. The birth rate in the Uk is about 1.4 per women so willl lead to massive population reduction within 20 years. It’s clear we need more people to come in but the issue is who and how do we filter. 

[Creator Supreme]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Are you really ginger in real life? Explains the highlights I guess. Nothing against gingers I love em. Especially that Irish bird from Patriot Games. Fuck me she’s amazing. 

She wasn't Irish bud, the lovely Polly Walker (from Warrington I believe).

 

Or have I been woodshed?

[Bjornebye]

20 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

She wasn't Irish bud, the lovely Polly Walker (from Warrington I believe).

 

Or have I been woodshed?

Really? 

[Creator Supreme]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Really? 

If we're talking about the IRA terrorist in the film, yes it was Polly Walker.

[Bjornebye]

20 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

If we're talking about the IRA terrorist in the film, yes it was Polly Walker.

She’s amazing. 

[Arniepie]

I don’t think they have a choice, they have to make inroads into stopping the boats, in the current climate. Anything else and they will be toast

In a modern, fully functioning country there would be a grown up, adult debate about the merits and negatives around the while topic of immigration.

sadly, we live in a basket case of a country. 

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

I don’t think they have a choice, they have to make inroads into stopping the boats, in the current climate. Anything else and they will be toast

In a modern, fully functioning country there would be a grown up, adult debate about the merits and negatives around the while topic of immigration.

sadly, we live in a basket case of a country. 

Absolutely but you’ve got the likes of Farage and Tice wanting more immigration, dying for more Muslim attacks etc because it strengthens their position amongst their demographic of voter. Deep down they don’t give a flying fuck the only way it affects them is financially. Johnson didn’t want Covid to happen, not because of the deaths but because he had today his lazy arse out of bed and try and do a PM’s job (which he royally fucked up anyway) 

[Section_31]

40 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

I don’t think they have a choice, they have to make inroads into stopping the boats, in the current climate. Anything else and they will be toast

In a modern, fully functioning country there would be a grown up, adult debate about the merits and negatives around the while topic of immigration.

sadly, we live in a basket case of a country. 

 

I think there's a couple of issues,

 

One is - forgive me - the optics of people arriving on boats. I suspect they've been created purposely by the previous mob to sow strife.

 

They've made fewer and fewer courses of action available to people wanting refugee status so helped contribute towards people making last ditch, desperate efforts.

 

They've then put them up in hotels/HMOs in deprived areas where they know there'll be strife. Throw in our healthy grifterverse and Twitter and you've got the perfect storm.

 

But I also think another problem is the demographic. By its nature, the boats will create a 'survival of the fittest' situation where main people who arrive are all men, and all young. 

 

Immigration, on the face of it, isn't about families/couples, but young lads - and that makes people peevish. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

I don’t think they have a choice, they have to make inroads into stopping the boats, in the current climate. Anything else and they will be toast

In a modern, fully functioning country there would be a grown up, adult debate about the merits and negatives around the while topic of immigration.

sadly, we live in a basket case of a country. 

As shown in the clip Stronts posted, asylum seekers on "the boats" are a tiny proportion of immigrants.  The only way to stop asylum seekers risking their lives in the hands of people traffickers is the thing that worked for Ukrainian asylum seekers: safe routes.  As well as being the humane thing to do, the optics of regular small boat crossings would stop in no time.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

25 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I think there's a couple of issues,

 

One is - forgive me - the optics of people arriving on boats. I suspect they've been created purposely by the previous mob to sow strife.

 

They've made fewer and fewer courses of action available to people wanting refugee status so helped contribute towards people making last ditch, desperate efforts.

 

They've then put them up in hotels/HMOs in deprived areas where they know there'll be strife. Throw in our healthy grifterverse and Twitter and you've got the perfect storm.

 

But I also think another problem is the demographic. By its nature, the boats will create a 'survival of the fittest' situation where main people who arrive are all men, and all young. 

 

Immigration, on the face of it, isn't about families/couples, but young lads - and that makes people peevish. 

That penultimate paragraph makes a good point. A lot of asylum seekers are young fathers who make an incredibly difficult and dangerous journey, with the intention of claiming asylum and thereby opening up a much safer route for their wives and children.

 

Or "fighting age men", if you're a cunt.

[Arniepie]

7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

As shown in the clip Stronts posted, asylum seekers on "the boats" are a tiny proportion of immigrants.  The only way to stop asylum seekers risking their lives in the hands of people traffickers is the thing that worked for Ukrainian asylum seekers: safe routes.  As well as being the humane thing to do, the optics of regular small boat crossings would stop in no time.

but its something which plays into the hands of reform,with nonsense around invasions and loss of control.

Labour get a grip of this, and they have done more in the last few weeks than the tories did in the last 5 years,and it cuts the legs from reform.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Crime is too high because it ruins lives. Wages are too low because people can't afford a decent standard of living. Poverty levels are too high because poverty ruins lives.  Immigration is too high because... what?  Unless you can answer that, you're not having a mature debate.

There's plenty of evidence that immigration drives economic growth and that some key sectors - agriculture, health, hospitality - are dependent on immigration.  Unless you're prepared to acknowledge the detrimental effect of cutting immigration, you're not having a mature debate 

 

As an aside, the way you've responded makes it a bit difficult to read (because of the collapsed quote box, I had no idea you had responded to half of it) and time consuming to format a response. There's a feature of the forum that isn't immediately obvious that can help with this. Instead of bolding your response, all you have to do is select the part of my post to which you intend to reply, then a 'quote' prompt will come up. If you click that, it'll automatically put the quote in the reply box and you can write underneath that. When you're ready to reply to the next part, just start a new paragraph in the reply box and scroll up and repeat the highlight/quote on the next part of the post you want to quote. Sorted. 

 

In response to the above, this is somewhat shifting away from the point I was making. I'm not against immigration, so I'm hardly going to be pulled into defending cutting immigration in key sectors. I support many different types of immigration. It's perfectly possible to be in favour of immigration, acknowledge positives of immigration, and accept that overall immigration adds to the economy without having to ignore the downsides, ignore the changing trends in immigration, or deny the impact of significantly higher than usual immigration numbers. It's hardly a mature debate if we ignore the negative factors. Anyway, this is beside the original claim - that acknowledgment that immigration is too high isn't immature, though obviously only saying those words and nothing else doesn't encapsulate an entire debate anymore than 'immigration drives economic growth' encapsulates the entire debate. I share your desire to avoid scapegoating, dehumanising, etc. I just refute that accepting that immigration, which is now at record highs, is too high in and of itself something that's an issue. 

 

22 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You're swerving her point again. Voters care about their quality of life. They have been lied to by Reform and the Tories - and, too often, by Labour - into thinking that cutting immigration would improve things, just the way Brexit did.

 

I'm not swerving anything. I responded to something she said, that's all. I'm happy to talk about other things in addition to my own point. Regarding what voters care about, as I said before they care about a lot of things. The most important issues are tracked weekly, so we don't have to guess or make declarative statements, and we don't need to ignore the factors we don't want to face. Voters do care about their quality of life (The Economy - 48%, Health - 38%) but they also care about Immigration (42%), Defence (26%), Benefits (8%), Pensions (9%), and Family Life and Childcare (5%) and many other things. For clarity, they care as much or more about Immigration and Asylum (42%) as they do about Health or Defence, and more than Housing (19%), Education (11%), and Taxation (10%) put together. That's why I question her comment about not accepting that immigration is too high. If we don't accept it's too high, then Labour are going to have to change their current position (that it is too high and needs to be 'significantly reduced', without putting a number on it) and make the argument that it's not too high and say it's either fine as it is or is too low, or that the number of people coming into the country simply doesn't matter. Well, fine, but good luck winning an election on the back of that message. Even Corbyn's message in 2017 was 'I want to ensure we are controlling migration because too-high uncontrolled migration puts pressure on our public services, but it also lowers wages at the lower end of the income scale'. Len McCluskey went further. Now, if we look at the numbers from 2017 in comparison to 2024, we can definitely accuse Corbyn ( a 'control immigration mug'?) of emboldening racists. Obviously not the case, and that'd rightly be dismissed. He qualifies it, just in the same way the current Labour party does. 

 

The point is, we have to be able to talk about the issue of immigration - narrowly only second to the economy as the top issue people care about - without dismissing people as [insert insult aimed at those you need to vote for your cause]. There's a political cost to being dismissive that stops us being able to put policy in place. That's the thing that really stops the right, the racists, the scapegoaters. 

 

23 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Traditional Labour gave power to the Tories, with a little help from shit like the "Control Immigration" mugs.  The only time they actually improved numbers of votes and vote share was when they swerved that rubbish and focused on the stuff that matters.

 

AoT, come on. Vote share and numbers compared across elections when you have an additional party force is misleading, not acknowledging where those votes are from (vote stacking in safe constituencies is great n' all, but it doesn't win elections) is misleading, not acknowledging the actual result is misleading. If you want to repeat the approach of 2017 and 2019, then that's up to you. I'd prefer to learn from it, because it results in Tory government, Tory policies, and Labour wilderness. You might think it's rubbish that doesn't matter, but you shouldn't make the mistake that thinking it doesn't matter to anyone else. Well, not if you want a Labour government. Still, I fear this is covering old ground. 

 

23 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

No.  If you pretend that whatever the current number is is "too many" then you're stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the racist right.

 

The fact you don't seem to know what the number is but you're still unwilling to accept that there's a possibility that it could be too high means that the number could be anything - including every person in the world showing up tomorrow - and it wouldn't be too high. 8bn, would that be too high, or would I still be stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the racist right? I'm proposing an (obviously) ridiculous scenario to test that logic. If that's clearly too high, which it is, then it's a matter of finding the point at which it's too high for the system to handle without negative consequences, at least in the short and medium term.

 

Not dealing with immigration properly, and not properly dealing with issue people in the country have with immigration, is what emboldens the racist right. The failure to adequately control immigration in a way that the average person can recognise the benefits of is what ultimately emboldens the racist right. Reading into any issue with immigration as some dehumanising, racist agenda alienates people. I want the immigration levels linked to the needs of the country, primarily in service of the people of this country while also fulfilling our obligations and treating those in need with compassion and integrity, That seems like a balanced approach, one that Corbyn and Starmer have both spoken about. You seem to be outside of that tent, so let me ask for clarification. 

 

The question to you is, and please answer this one directly, do you want uncontrolled immigration? If you do, that's totally fine and a legitimate position to take - even if I do disagree with it - but if you do not, then you tacitly accept that immigration can be too high, otherwise why limit it at all. Even if you ignore the rest of my post and just call me a racist embolden(er), please clue me in where you stand on that. My objective here isn't (only) to be combative or to dominate, but to at least find some mutual ground or have an understanding because what she said was, to me, potentially costly to Labour. 

 

On 02/12/2024 at 13:47, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's just untrue. I haven't dismissed anyone as a stupid racist; I refuse to accept false claims, logically inconsistent narratives and racist scapegoating that's all.  If Labour enter the debate on those grounds they legitimise dangerous nonsense and they lose, every time.

 

That's clearly not the case, having won under Starmer who committed to significantly reducing numbers because they're too high. As for what I said being untrue, you literally did what I accused you of (though you only addressed the first half). I do agree with the point you make later, that people weren't voting for Labour because of their stance on immigration. What it did was not completely alienate a lot of voters in areas they needed to win. It certainly cost them votes in areas they were already strong in, as did other things. The cost... not being able to brag about vote share. Oh well, I'm sure the landslide victory was enough to soothe that wound. 

 

On 02/12/2024 at 13:47, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Again, that's just not true. Labour won the election with fewer votes and a lower vote share than in 2019 because of the rise of the racist right.  The country needs Labour to lead the fight against the racists by showing their lies for what they are - and by solving the problems that the racists falsely claim are caused by immigration.  

 

Labour won because they got a broad spectrum of votes in areas they needed to win and did so using methods you aren't in favour of. Labour lost twice under Corbyn. These things aren't untrue. Is the intent to continue the methods that worked to win the 'vote share' (read: doesn't need to win to be a winner, he is a winner) vs 2024, because if it is then it's going to end the same way in my opinion. 

 

On 02/12/2024 at 13:47, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's more accurate to say the Tories lost; there's no great love for Labour from left or right. I'd be very surprised if anyone who was horny for limiting immigration voted Labour, when there were two overtly racist parties vying for that vote.

 

This is such a ruse, man. Labour didn't win, the Tories lost. Fair enough. I mean, this is a special sort of copium. Labour didn't win, the Tories lost. That's right up there with 'Covid trophy' and 'pace goals'. Labour could have happily done what the previous regime did (Labour didn't lose, the Tories won?) and placated those in safe seats. With any lucky, they could have had just enough votes to ensure a Tory/Reform government. I mean, what is the point in this if Labour aren't in power. It's frustrating, because your entire point is about emboldening the right, but this is the real thing that's helping them. We clearly have the same overall objective of smashing the right (I assume?) but clearly we have some significant differences in methodology and strategy. You seem to argue from an emotional, morality first perspective, I'm arguing from a pragmatic, what's the point if our morals are thrown in the bin under a Tory government perspective. It does nothing more than allow us to pat ourselves on the back while not really helping anyone. 

 

On 02/12/2024 at 13:47, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It isn't logically derived from her comments.

 

Then you're going to have to help me see the logic here, because I clearly ain't getting the other option/s. If you're not accepting that immigration is too high, then what's the position if it isn't 1) stay the same 2) increase it, or 3) pretend it doesn't exist? I can't think if any other, so either it is or you know of something else or those are the options.  

 

On 02/12/2024 at 13:47, AngryOfTuebrook said:

What is logically derived from her comments is the need to improve people's standards of living: if people aren't feeling any pain, they won't feel the need to look for scapegoats.

 

That's just demonstrably not right. If you would like examples of people with very high living standards who are about as anti-immigration as it's possible to be, just let me know. I'm not arguing against the need to improve people's living standards, I do reject the idea that if you increase people's living standards then they're not going to be concerned about immigrants. 

[Section_31]

Could quickly become the last semblance of sanity in the west this cat. US going to shit, France and Germany could possibly follow. No wonder Musk has got beef with the wee man.

[No2]

They have 3 years to get a handle of this. Improve the lives of ordinary people and they won't care about immigration. 

[Anubis]

Streeting is a massive Cunt. It would be a shame if he fell down a set of stairs at Westminster.

 

[HazelyCosmicJove]

13 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

As shown in the clip Stronts posted, asylum seekers on "the boats" are a tiny proportion of immigrants.  The only way to stop asylum seekers risking their lives in the hands of people traffickers is the thing that worked for Ukrainian asylum seekers: safe routes.  As well as being the humane thing to do, the optics of regular small boat crossings would stop in no time.

It would be a lot easier to hire a coach or two from Dover's equivalent to Happy Als, send it over to Calais then if they have documentation and the money to pay a trafficker put them on the bus. Bring them over, put their money in the bank and tell them to live off it for as long as they can. Then process their application quickly. They are going to get here eventually one way or another.

[HazelyCosmicJove]

9 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

As an aside, the way you've responded makes it a bit difficult to read (because of the collapsed quote box, I had no idea you had responded to half of it) and time consuming to format a response. There's a feature of the forum that isn't immediately obvious that can help with this. Instead of bolding your response, all you have to do is select the part of my post to which you intend to reply, then a 'quote' prompt will come up. If you click that, it'll automatically put the quote in the reply box and you can write underneath that. When you're ready to reply to the next part, just start a new paragraph in the reply box and scroll up and repeat the highlight/quote on the next part of the post you want to quote. Sorted. 

 

In response to the above, this is somewhat shifting away from the point I was making. I'm not against immigration, so I'm hardly going to be pulled into defending cutting immigration in key sectors. I support many different types of immigration. It's perfectly possible to be in favour of immigration, acknowledge positives of immigration, and accept that overall immigration adds to the economy without having to ignore the downsides, ignore the changing trends in immigration, or deny the impact of significantly higher than usual immigration numbers. It's hardly a mature debate if we ignore the negative factors. Anyway, this is beside the original claim - that acknowledgment that immigration is too high isn't immature, though obviously only saying those words and nothing else doesn't encapsulate an entire debate anymore than 'immigration drives economic growth' encapsulates the entire debate. I share your desire to avoid scapegoating, dehumanising, etc. I just refute that accepting that immigration, which is now at record highs, is too high in and of itself something that's an issue. 

 

 

I'm not swerving anything. I responded to something she said, that's all. I'm happy to talk about other things in addition to my own point. Regarding what voters care about, as I said before they care about a lot of things. The most important issues are tracked weekly, so we don't have to guess or make declarative statements, and we don't need to ignore the factors we don't want to face. Voters do care about their quality of life (The Economy - 48%, Health - 38%) but they also care about Immigration (42%), Defence (26%), Benefits (8%), Pensions (9%), and Family Life and Childcare (5%) and many other things. For clarity, they care as much or more about Immigration and Asylum (42%) as they do about Health or Defence, and more than Housing (19%), Education (11%), and Taxation (10%) put together. That's why I question her comment about not accepting that immigration is too high. If we don't accept it's too high, then Labour are going to have to change their current position (that it is too high and needs to be 'significantly reduced', without putting a number on it) and make the argument that it's not too high and say it's either fine as it is or is too low, or that the number of people coming into the country simply doesn't matter. Well, fine, but good luck winning an election on the back of that message. Even Corbyn's message in 2017 was 'I want to ensure we are controlling migration because too-high uncontrolled migration puts pressure on our public services, but it also lowers wages at the lower end of the income scale'. Len McCluskey went further. Now, if we look at the numbers from 2017 in comparison to 2024, we can definitely accuse Corbyn ( a 'control immigration mug'?) of emboldening racists. Obviously not the case, and that'd rightly be dismissed. He qualifies it, just in the same way the current Labour party does. 

 

The point is, we have to be able to talk about the issue of immigration - narrowly only second to the economy as the top issue people care about - without dismissing people as [insert insult aimed at those you need to vote for your cause]. There's a political cost to being dismissive that stops us being able to put policy in place. That's the thing that really stops the right, the racists, the scapegoaters. 

 

 

AoT, come on. Vote share and numbers compared across elections when you have an additional party force is misleading, not acknowledging where those votes are from (vote stacking in safe constituencies is great n' all, but it doesn't win elections) is misleading, not acknowledging the actual result is misleading. If you want to repeat the approach of 2017 and 2019, then that's up to you. I'd prefer to learn from it, because it results in Tory government, Tory policies, and Labour wilderness. You might think it's rubbish that doesn't matter, but you shouldn't make the mistake that thinking it doesn't matter to anyone else. Well, not if you want a Labour government. Still, I fear this is covering old ground. 

 

 

The fact you don't seem to know what the number is but you're still unwilling to accept that there's a possibility that it could be too high means that the number could be anything - including every person in the world showing up tomorrow - and it wouldn't be too high. 8bn, would that be too high, or would I still be stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the racist right? I'm proposing an (obviously) ridiculous scenario to test that logic. If that's clearly too high, which it is, then it's a matter of finding the point at which it's too high for the system to handle without negative consequences, at least in the short and medium term.

 

Not dealing with immigration properly, and not properly dealing with issue people in the country have with immigration, is what emboldens the racist right. The failure to adequately control immigration in a way that the average person can recognise the benefits of is what ultimately emboldens the racist right. Reading into any issue with immigration as some dehumanising, racist agenda alienates people. I want the immigration levels linked to the needs of the country, primarily in service of the people of this country while also fulfilling our obligations and treating those in need with compassion and integrity, That seems like a balanced approach, one that Corbyn and Starmer have both spoken about. You seem to be outside of that tent, so let me ask for clarification. 

 

The question to you is, and please answer this one directly, do you want uncontrolled immigration? If you do, that's totally fine and a legitimate position to take - even if I do disagree with it - but if you do not, then you tacitly accept that immigration can be too high, otherwise why limit it at all. Even if you ignore the rest of my post and just call me a racist embolden(er), please clue me in where you stand on that. My objective here isn't (only) to be combative or to dominate, but to at least find some mutual ground or have an understanding because what she said was, to me, potentially costly to Labour. 

 

 

That's clearly not the case, having won under Starmer who committed to significantly reducing numbers because they're too high. As for what I said being untrue, you literally did what I accused you of (though you only addressed the first half). I do agree with the point you make later, that people weren't voting for Labour because of their stance on immigration. What it did was not completely alienate a lot of voters in areas they needed to win. It certainly cost them votes in areas they were already strong in, as did other things. The cost... not being able to brag about vote share. Oh well, I'm sure the landslide victory was enough to soothe that wound. 

 

 

Labour won because they got a broad spectrum of votes in areas they needed to win and did so using methods you aren't in favour of. Labour lost twice under Corbyn. These things aren't untrue. Is the intent to continue the methods that worked to win the 'vote share' (read: doesn't need to win to be a winner, he is a winner) vs 2024, because if it is then it's going to end the same way in my opinion. 

 

 

This is such a ruse, man. Labour didn't win, the Tories lost. Fair enough. I mean, this is a special sort of copium. Labour didn't win, the Tories lost. That's right up there with 'Covid trophy' and 'pace goals'. Labour could have happily done what the previous regime did (Labour didn't lose, the Tories won?) and placated those in safe seats. With any lucky, they could have had just enough votes to ensure a Tory/Reform government. I mean, what is the point in this if Labour aren't in power. It's frustrating, because your entire point is about emboldening the right, but this is the real thing that's helping them. We clearly have the same overall objective of smashing the right (I assume?) but clearly we have some significant differences in methodology and strategy. You seem to argue from an emotional, morality first perspective, I'm arguing from a pragmatic, what's the point if our morals are thrown in the bin under a Tory government perspective. It does nothing more than allow us to pat ourselves on the back while not really helping anyone. 

 

 

Then you're going to have to help me see the logic here, because I clearly ain't getting the other option/s. If you're not accepting that immigration is too high, then what's the position if it isn't 1) stay the same 2) increase it, or 3) pretend it doesn't exist? I can't think if any other, so either it is or you know of something else or those are the options.  

 

 

That's just demonstrably not right. If you would like examples of people with very high living standards who are about as anti-immigration as it's possible to be, just let me know. I'm not arguing against the need to improve people's living standards, I do reject the idea that if you increase people's living standards then they're not going to be concerned about immigrants. 

TL:DR

[Jairzinho]

7 hours ago, Anubis said:

Streeting is a massive Cunt. It would be a shame if he fell down a set of stairs at Westminster.

 

 

Incredible banter, from the slithering little cunt. To be fair, he's probably made up a Labour MP opposed to privatising the NHS has fucked off.

[Section_31]

8 hours ago, Anubis said:

Streeting is a massive Cunt. It would be a shame if he fell down a set of stairs at Westminster.

 

 

Snivelling twat.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, Anubis said:

Streeting is a massive Cunt. It would be a shame if he fell down a set of stairs at Westminster.

 

Cunt.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, HazelyCosmicJove said:

It would be a lot easier to hire a coach or two from Dover's equivalent to Happy Als, send it over to Calais then if they have documentation and the money to pay a trafficker put them on the bus. Bring them over, put their money in the bank and tell them to live off it for as long as they can. Then process their application quickly. They are going to get here eventually one way or another.

The vast majority of the people who cross the Channel in those death-trap RIBs apply for asylum; about 3/4 of them have their applications (eventually!) approved.  If there were safe routes for these refugees to travel to the UK (as there were for Ukrainian refugees) then there would be no need for traffickers.  Employ a few more people to process the claims and there's less need for temporary accommodation; allow them to work while they're waiting and they can pay their own way (and even pay tax!)

 

It's really not difficult to come up with an approach to asylum that's better in every way than the horrific shitshow the racist Tories created.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, HazelyCosmicJove said:

TL:DR

No offence, Numero, but same here. I'll read it when I get a chance.

 

Meanwhile, the TL;DR version of my position on immigration is the same as that other radical lefty firebrand Hicks.

On 02/12/2024 at 15:08, Engineman Hicks said:

 I think an absolute focus on numbers is a bit if a cul de sac. 

 

[Arniepie]

8 hours ago, HazelyCosmicJove said:

It would be a lot easier to hire a coach or two from Dover's equivalent to Happy Als, send it over to Calais then if they have documentation and the money to pay a trafficker put them on the bus. Bring them over, put their money in the bank and tell them to live off it for as long as they can. Then process their application quickly. They are going to get here eventually one way or another.

if only we would make some sort of offer to have a processing centre in france..