General Election Pre-Thread (6 of 6)

[bielesibub]

8 hours ago, sidcow said:

No I'm just utterly sick to the back teeth of this utterly nonsense argument that Labour will be exactly the same and nothing will change. 

It's bollocks AND it's a damaging narrative. 

I think you mistake me, I never said it would be exactly the same under Labour. My opinion is not bollocks, but thanks for that, it's based on experience of Labour 70's, Tories 80's/90's, Labour 90's/00's, and now this current shower of muck. New Labour in the late 90's and 00's were probably the best political party we've ever had, the irony is that they probably wouldn't have looked out of place at a Conservative conference. 
From a personal point of view, I would love to see things get better, as I'm disabled and unable to work thanks to regular infections and trips to hospital.  I'd love some help from the powers that be but have had none thus far. The single reason I only have a roof over my head is because I paid for private insurances, I dread to think where my family and I would be if we'd have had to rely on the 'benefits' system. I've just had to pay 3k for an electric wheelchair, I couldn't get any kind of help from the system I've paid into all my working life.
As mentioned, I regularly visit hospitals, they are an absolute mess, there are never enough nurses. Anecdotally, I'd really like to blame Brexit for a lot of our troubles now and the great thing with Brexit is there is no blame on the Conservatives as they were only following the wishes of the great unwashed. 
A politician, is a politician after all, they only shuffle about with spin.  Who can we trust better? the one who is trying to gain power or the one who is in power? 
If I'm feeding into a damaging 'narrative', so be it, I really don't care.  The only social media you'll find me actively on is VT, I've got an opinion that isn't lazily plucked from some 'like-whore' on Facebook/X/Instagram/etc.. I do read a lot of news, it's one of my hobbies. I've got a lot of time on my hands.

[The Fun Factory]

Sunak, or whoever his advisers are, have run an utterly terrible campaign. They have never been in control of the events from the ridiculous election announcement in the pouring rain, to the D Day debacle and then the slow drip news of the betting on the election. There is no big ideas in the manifesto after 14 years it is just some vague promises to cut taxes, even though I would probably suspect the majority of people would be willing to pay a bit more to have functional running public services. His last desperate lunge is to say that voting for Starmer will help Putin which is so pathetic it is not even worth talking about. 

Getting squeezed to the right by reform and losing the centre ground to Labour and the Lib Dems. He inherited a poor situation and has made it worse. 

Edited Monday at 08:17 by The Fun Factory

[Jareth]

It's a bit of a miserable election, country's in the shit and there's no big ideas to change that, just a slogan 'change'. That said, I will enjoy Thursday night / Friday morning, and will hope for better things, I don't think it can get much worse, so there's that. 

[Wainy316]

I just really really really want to see Mogg, Gullis and Anderson lose their seats on live TV

[bickster]

 

[mjmooney]

Quote

A mainstay of BBC election night coverage, the swingometer was designed to explain the unfolding results in visual terms. It has kept pace with evolving broadcast technology and developed from a simple hand-made prop into the latest in computer wizardry.

History of the Swingometer

 

 

[mjmooney]

 

[MCU]

 

[ml1dch]

My cup truly runneth over for election literature today - Labour, Tories, Green, one "serious" independent and one joke independent. 

All for a seat that the Lib Dems will hold so comfortably the others might as well not bother standing.

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, MCU said:

 

Kind of a gross account to be following and sharing tbh

But if you're interested in what their policy is rather than "just asking questions", there's a bit more detail here. The emphasis is clearly on stopping as many as possible by going after the people smugglers, but also on ramping up staffing for returning people to their country of origin.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/

Quote

Labour will launch a new Border Security Command with hundreds of new specialist investigators and counter-terror powers to smash criminal gangs and strengthen our borders.

This will involve:

Creating a new Border Security Commander – a former police, military or intelligence chief – and reporting directly to the Home Secretary, the new Command will direct work across key intelligence and enforcement agencies with a single aim of ensuring a strong, protected border. 

Hiring hundreds of additional specialist investigators, intelligence agents and cross-border police officers, who will support the Border Security Command unit and work across the UK and Europe, split across multiple agencies, including the National Crime Agency, MI5, Border Force, CPS International and Immigration Enforcement.

Labour’s approach to securing our borders will include: 

Smashing the criminal gangs by using counter-terror style tactics, using the full force of Britain’s intelligence and policing to destroy the evil business model of human trafficking. 

Deploying more police and investigators in a Cross-Border Police Unit to go after the smuggler and trafficking gangs who undermine our border security and put lives at risk.

Setting up a 1,000 strong Returns and Enforcement Unit to ensure failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be here are removed.

 

[jones1328]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Kind of a gross account to be following and sharing tbh

 

 

Are you surprised though?

[The Fun Factory]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

But if you're interested in what their policy is rather than "just asking questions", there's a bit more detail here. The emphasis is clearly on stopping as many as possible by going after the people smugglers, but also on ramping up staffing for returning people to their country of origin.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/

 

Isn't that what Border Force does? Which used to be the Border and Immigration Agency. Which used to be the  imigration and Nationality Directorate.Its almost like they launch new bodies which do almost the same role as a previous one to show that they are doing 'something' about it.

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Isn't that what Border Force does? Which used to be the Border and Immigration Agency. Which used to be the  imigration and Nationality Directorate.Its almost like they launch new bodies which do almost the same role as a previous one to show that they are doing 'something' about it.

I'm not saying it'll necessarily work, just that their policy isn't "**** it, let them all in" like the conspiracy nutter MCU is sharing claims (they have responses to the above thread saying they reckon Labour's solution is going to be to force anyone with a spare bedroom to house asylum seekers, they're an absolute nutter/Reform bot, who can tell).

I guess one of the advantages of splitting it out is that while this is currently within the remit of Border Force, they have a whole set of other responsibilities, so this makes the problem the specific target of one organisation, and also puts more funding into it.

Certainly not a silver bullet though.

[Danwichmann]

35 minutes ago, MCU said:

 

Someone more clued up than me may correct this, but if they are originating from unsafe countries, I think they would have a valid refugee claim and wouldn't need to be sent back anywhere. Only the crossing method they use is illegal, but since we don't offer safe and legal methods they don't have any choice. 

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, Danwichmann said:

Someone more clued up than me may correct this, but if they are originating from unsafe countries, I think they would have a valid refugee claim and wouldn't need to be sent back anywhere. Only the crossing method they use is illegal, but since we don't offer safe and legal methods they don't have any choice. 

It's not enough to simply be from an unsafe country, they need to have a well-founded fear of persecution, and we need to deem them to have a real risk of coming to harm.

Edited Monday at 12:38 by Davkaus

[Rugeley Villa]

5 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

I just really really really want to see Mogg, Gullis and Anderson lose their seats on live TV

I don’t mind Moggy 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I don’t mind Moggy 

… as a human cruise missile

[Davkaus]

 

This is very, very silly but made me laugh

 

[richp999]

4 hours ago, Danwichmann said:

Someone more clued up than me may correct this, but if they are originating from unsafe countries, I think they would have a valid refugee claim and wouldn't need to be sent back anywhere. Only the crossing method they use is illegal, but since we don't offer safe and legal methods they don't have any choice. 

The latest figure for the previous year’s legal migration into the UK is 1.2 million. How do you think they did this without any safe or legal methods ?

[sharkyvilla]

4 hours ago, MCU said:

 

The ironic thing is that before Brexit we could just send them back to whichever country they entered the EU, couldn't we?  No need for expensive deals to send a handful of people to Rwanda.