Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is a poor attempt to appeal to the middle ground swing voters into voting labour over tory with statements such as this "labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”. The labour faithful must have chocked on their bacon sandwiches after reading that. " No bacon, they're all vegan  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is a poor attempt to appeal to the middle ground swing voters into voting labour over tory with statements such as this "labelled those who disagreed with the proposals “un-British”. The labour faithful must have chocked on their bacon sandwiches after reading that. No bacon, they're all vegan "that's the greens and lib Dems. Labour is home of the bacon sarnie | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day "he poisons his plans by playing to the audience. A returns policy is interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
"If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience? What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. "address the issue as it is an issue. For sure. I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish". But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is. "I agree, that's a shame and not needed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is.
I agree, that's a shame and not needed"however the swapping is interesting. Similar to EU and turkey arrangements irrc. It encourages "good behaviour" from asylum seekers. It also may reduce intake ... as no boat crossings mean no swapsies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A returns policy is interesting." I'm not sure it'll work for him. I see two types of people that want to stop small boats - those that want to stop people drowning, and those that want to stop foreigners arriving. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the 'drowning' types tend to be Labour voters, and the 'foreigners' type tend to be Tory voters. So he's proposing a stop to the boats, which will please those people that were already going to vote for him anyway - and he's proposing more immigrants, which won't please those on the other side. I don't think this policy is going to win him any votes. In addition, if he gets into power and implements that policy, I'm not convinced that it will actually stop the boat crossings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish". " Alienating the audience - the tactic that resulted in Brexit. In the Brexit debates, accusations of 'racism' were used to label the other side as bad people. If Starmer thinks that labelling the opposition as 'unbritish' is going to persuade people to vote for him, he's going to get a nasty surprise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is.
I agree, that's a shame and not neededhowever the swapping is interesting. Similar to EU and turkey arrangements irrc.
It encourages "good behaviour" from asylum seekers.
It also may reduce intake ... as no boat crossings mean no swapsies. "Some sort of play on the Dublin Agreement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is.
I agree, that's a shame and not neededhowever the swapping is interesting. Similar to EU and turkey arrangements irrc.
It encourages "good behaviour" from asylum seekers.
It also may reduce intake ... as no boat crossings mean no swapsies.
Some sort of play on the Dublin Agreement?"not sure. Dublin wasn't a swap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is.
I agree, that's a shame and not neededhowever the swapping is interesting. Similar to EU and turkey arrangements irrc.
It encourages "good behaviour" from asylum seekers.
It also may reduce intake ... as no boat crossings mean no swapsies.
Some sort of play on the Dublin Agreement?not sure. Dublin wasn't a swap. "I'm aware | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day he poisons his plans by playing to the audience.
A returns policy is interesting.
If he wants elected, doesn't he have to play to the audience?
What we do know is, boat crossings are an issue for most people centreright so that's the majority. address the issue as it is an issue. For sure.
I'm just disappointed he's resorted to shouting people down with "unbritish".
But I'm maybe green in thinking we can improve the political language so the electorate can be treated like adults. I like to think that people can look past slogans when deciding what their "electorial will" is.
I agree, that's a shame and not neededhowever the swapping is interesting. Similar to EU and turkey arrangements irrc.
It encourages "good behaviour" from asylum seekers.
It also may reduce intake ... as no boat crossings mean no swapsies.
Some sort of play on the Dublin Agreement?not sure. Dublin wasn't a swap.
I'm aware " never assume etc. Other than being with the EU I can't see the overlap with Dublin. Feels like it would apply on different circumstances. Most crossers couldn't be returned via Dublin it seems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govt" why do you think they won't ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govt" I would assume Starmer will go to the EU in much the same way Sunak has. From what I'm seeing, France are actually trying now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govt" They were willing to negotiate with a potential Corbyn led lab govt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? " Because I don't see what's in it for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them " they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. " And they'd only do this with a labour govt? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. And they'd only do this with a labour govt?" didn't say this. Have the Tories proposed this before ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. " Is this a straight forward one for one swap. So everyone that arrives by small boat is swapped for someone far away who did not make the crossing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. Is this a straight forward one for one swap. So everyone that arrives by small boat is swapped for someone far away who did not make the crossing? " not sure details have been released tbh. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day "who is this ?? the male or female of the couple ???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. And they'd only do this with a labour govt?didn't say this. Have the Tories proposed this before ?" That's not the issue. SKS is saying he'll renegotiate. I'm asking on what basis. You have no answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day
who is this ?? the male or female of the couple ????"What difference would it make to you, if it was the male or female? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal?" Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme" I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day
who is this ?? the male or female of the couple ????"What difference does it make which one of the partnership I am? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. " The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda" the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then?" It's not my number it is what is reported. I think maybe they are working on the assumption that any new scheme will be used for all small boat arrivals whereas the Dublin scheme was not used much at all. I'm still not sure how such a scheme works with human rights as people will sent somewhere they did not intend to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then? It's not my number it is what is reported. I think maybe they are working on the assumption that any new scheme will be used for all small boat arrivals whereas the Dublin scheme was not used much at all. I'm still not sure how such a scheme works with human rights as people will sent somewhere they did not intend to be" reported by government ministers. Until I see workings it feels like a crock of shit numbers. That's 2x the crossers. But it will help shine a light on what people's real concerns are... Lives of crossers... safety of UK.... capacity to take on numbers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then? It's not my number it is what is reported. I think maybe they are working on the assumption that any new scheme will be used for all small boat arrivals whereas the Dublin scheme was not used much at all. I'm still not sure how such a scheme works with human rights as people will sent somewhere they did not intend to bereported by government ministers. Until I see workings it feels like a crock of shit numbers. That's 2x the crossers. But it will help shine a light on what people's real concerns are... Lives of crossers... safety of UK.... capacity to take on numbers. " Indeed we need to see the workings on this and is a reason I asked if it us a one for one swap as I could not fathom how they arrived at their number. If however it is like the old Dublin agreement which allows family as well then it's not entirely impossible. Hopefully Labour will clarify the terms they seek which will make things clearer. If they are not going to be clear then they leave it open to interpretation. As for the concerns you mention, they all look valid to me. Some will be concerned about individual concerns while others will be concerned about more than one or even all three | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. And they'd only do this with a labour govt?didn't say this. Have the Tories proposed this before ?" I've no idea but from what I've read today the EU won't entertain it until their own house is in order so don't hold your breath on that considering the issues in Italy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why he thinks the EU is willing to negotiate with, presumably, a Labour govtwhy do you think they won't ? Because I don't see what's in it for them they are no worse off (as a swap) and it helps reduce criminality in their country. It sounded similar to the EU/turkey arrangements so that may make them more open. And they'd only do this with a labour govt?didn't say this. Have the Tories proposed this before ? I've no idea but from what I've read today the EU won't entertain it until their own house is in order so don't hold your breath on that considering the issues in Italy " And Greece | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then? It's not my number it is what is reported. I think maybe they are working on the assumption that any new scheme will be used for all small boat arrivals whereas the Dublin scheme was not used much at all. I'm still not sure how such a scheme works with human rights as people will sent somewhere they did not intend to bereported by government ministers. Until I see workings it feels like a crock of shit numbers. That's 2x the crossers. But it will help shine a light on what people's real concerns are... Lives of crossers... safety of UK.... capacity to take on numbers. Indeed we need to see the workings on this and is a reason I asked if it us a one for one swap as I could not fathom how they arrived at their number. If however it is like the old Dublin agreement which allows family as well then it's not entirely impossible. Hopefully Labour will clarify the terms they seek which will make things clearer. If they are not going to be clear then they leave it open to interpretation. As for the concerns you mention, they all look valid to me. Some will be concerned about individual concerns while others will be concerned about more than one or even all three" I agree they are all valid concerns. And this approach seems to help reduce the attractiveness if crossing, so achieved the first two. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't see a reason why EU will agree to his deal unless they gain anything out of it. Immigration has been a big political problem in the EU too. All countries are voting for right wing parties because of that. So they don't have any advantage getting back immigrants from UK. What can we offer to balance the deal? Some media are claiming that it will increase those coming by 100,000 per year. Not sure how they work that out if it is a one for one swap. Of course the other problem could be if those that arrive by small boat don't want to be sent elsewhere to be swapped. It may end up in a legal mess as like the Rwanda scheme I think before Brexit, it was possible to return some migrants back to France. But any deal like that would mean UK taking more asylum seekers in return, only not through boats. The pre brexit deal, the Dublin agreement which has been mentioned before was not just about deporting people. It worked both ways and in the years before brexit, more people were sent to the UK than out of the UK. It also allowed for successful asylum seekers families to be brought over and have a better chance of acceptance. If SKS goes that route then 100,000 extra may not be far off. Regardless of the deal I still wonder what happens when the small boat arrivals say they do not want to be swapped and sent elsewhere. Much like what happens now with Rwanda the transfers to and from UK under Dublin working in the hundreds not thousands left alone tens of thousands. Why is 100,000 a reasonable number then? It's not my number it is what is reported. I think maybe they are working on the assumption that any new scheme will be used for all small boat arrivals whereas the Dublin scheme was not used much at all. I'm still not sure how such a scheme works with human rights as people will sent somewhere they did not intend to bereported by government ministers. Until I see workings it feels like a crock of shit numbers. That's 2x the crossers. But it will help shine a light on what people's real concerns are... Lives of crossers... safety of UK.... capacity to take on numbers. Indeed we need to see the workings on this and is a reason I asked if it us a one for one swap as I could not fathom how they arrived at their number. If however it is like the old Dublin agreement which allows family as well then it's not entirely impossible. Hopefully Labour will clarify the terms they seek which will make things clearer. If they are not going to be clear then they leave it open to interpretation. As for the concerns you mention, they all look valid to me. Some will be concerned about individual concerns while others will be concerned about more than one or even all threeI agree they are all valid concerns. And this approach seems to help reduce the attractiveness if crossing, so achieved the first two. " It does reduce the attractiveness of crossing by saying that if you do so you will be sent elsewhere but that seems similar to the Rwandan plan hence why I fear it will get bogged down in legalities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also." Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'?" The public order bill, for one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also." "Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'?" "The public order bill, for one. " Yes, we all know that you're a proud lefty, but I wasn't asking you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one. Yes, we all know that you're a proud lefty, but I wasn't asking you." Oh I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood how a forum works. I’ll get back in my box, and only pop out when you jump on someone else’s question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one. "You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
"Peaceful? Pull the other one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
"If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about. You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?"No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan)."So you are making it up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
Peaceful? Pull the other one. "Why did the govt want to introduce banning restrictions on those protesting even without previous convictions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up "No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand."The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme' "It was govt policy, was it not? Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
Peaceful? Pull the other one.
Why did the govt want to introduce banning restrictions on those protesting even without previous convictions? "Is that a rhetorical question? I'm sure you already have your answer. However, I'll give you my thoughts. Protestors in the last few years have become rather extreme, governement hit back with their own extreme. That's generally how things work, every action has a reaction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them? "WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
Peaceful? Pull the other one.
Why did the govt want to introduce banning restrictions on those protesting even without previous convictions?
Is that a rhetorical question? I'm sure you already have your answer.
However, I'll give you my thoughts. Protestors in the last few years have become rather extreme, governement hit back with their own extreme.
That's generally how things work, every action has a reaction. "If the government clamped down on extreme protests (when police have of course always had the right to deal with such) that would be one thing - however the public order bill makes it in offence for a single person to make too much noise, to lock themselves to a barrier (suffragettes, anyone?), and gave powers to stop and search without suspicion. All unnecessary. I believe those are all draconian and extreme. Mayhap you don’t. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question. "So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened? "I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future. "Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill It would have gone through. That how it works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
Peaceful? Pull the other one.
Why did the govt want to introduce banning restrictions on those protesting even without previous convictions?
Is that a rhetorical question? I'm sure you already have your answer.
However, I'll give you my thoughts. Protestors in the last few years have become rather extreme, governement hit back with their own extreme.
That's generally how things work, every action has a reaction.
If the government clamped down on extreme protests (when police have of course always had the right to deal with such) that would be one thing - however the public order bill makes it in offence for a single person to make too much noise, to lock themselves to a barrier (suffragettes, anyone?), and gave powers to stop and search without suspicion. All unnecessary.
I believe those are all draconian and extreme. Mayhap you don’t. "Oh the old suffragettes line? Terrorists, is that what we have to wait for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works. "But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works. Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works.
But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works.
Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often. "The upper house isn’t govt. - the question was about govt policy. You can skirt around if you like, the public order bill was an extreme policy put forward by govt. It was thankfully moderated by parliament (though not enough IMO) - but that doesn’t change the original policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the question was about govt policy." The question was about what abernath thought was extreme. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works.
But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works.
Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often.
The upper house isn’t govt. - the question was about govt policy.
You can skirt around if you like, the public order bill was an extreme policy put forward by govt. It was thankfully moderated by parliament (though not enough IMO) - but that doesn’t change the original policy.
"I didn't say the upper house was Govt. You were asked a specific question and are now trying to muddy to waters to suit your argument. Anyway, I'm busy today moving my daughter (who is state educated) to a very highly ranked university. She didn't get there on merit though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the question was about govt policy. The question was about what abernath thought was extreme." Apologies for joining in, again. Sorry I can’t help myself. Bloody open forums, eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works.
But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works.
Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often.
The upper house isn’t govt. - the question was about govt policy.
You can skirt around if you like, the public order bill was an extreme policy put forward by govt. It was thankfully moderated by parliament (though not enough IMO) - but that doesn’t change the original policy.
I didn't say the upper house was Govt.
You were asked a specific question and are now trying to muddy to waters to suit your argument.
Anyway, I'm busy today moving my daughter (who is state educated) to a very highly ranked university. She didn't get there on merit though "I’m muddying nothing. I said a govt policy was extreme, and you said it wasn’t (because the lords overruled it) - but the lords aren’t govt and as such the policy as set out by govt, was still extreme. And congrats to your daughter. Mine’s just started college this past couple of weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works.
But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works.
Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often.
The upper house isn’t govt. - the question was about govt policy.
You can skirt around if you like, the public order bill was an extreme policy put forward by govt. It was thankfully moderated by parliament (though not enough IMO) - but that doesn’t change the original policy.
I didn't say the upper house was Govt.
You were asked a specific question and are now trying to muddy to waters to suit your argument.
Anyway, I'm busy today moving my daughter (who is state educated) to a very highly ranked university. She didn't get there on merit though
I’m muddying nothing. I said a govt policy was extreme, and you said it wasn’t (because the lords overruled it) - but the lords aren’t govt and as such the policy as set out by govt, was still extreme.
And congrats to your daughter. Mine’s just started college this past couple of weeks. "The governments original policy may have been extreme, push back against extreme. They then amended it. You're still trying to argue their original policy, that's where you're muddying the waters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What labour have learned under Keir is that extreme politics don’t work in a moderate society. So tories need to take the hint also. Which of the current Tory policies would you class as 'extreme'? The public order bill, for one.
You don’t think govt. attempting to clampdown on legal and peaceful protest is extreme?
If they did that yes, but since they haven't I have nothing to worry about.
You are making up scenarios which this bill does not cover, why?
No, I’m using the planned public order bill before the lords forced govt. to roll back on it. (i.e the govt’s original plan).
So you are making it up
No. This is about extreme policies - the govt wanted to introduce an extreme policy. The lords voted it down. This isn’t hard to understand.
The question posed was 'which if the current policies are extreme'
It was govt policy, was it not?
Did they have a pang of conscience and roll back on it, or did the lords overrule them?
WAS. It's quite a key word in the context of the question.
So if the lords hadn’t overruled the policy, what would have happened?
I don't know and neither do you. Again, that's how things work. Unless you can see into the future.
Well we do know. If the lords had ratified the bill
It would have gone through. That how it works.
But they didn't and thats we we have an upper house. I thought you knew how out governemnt works.
Go with extreme fully expecting push back. That happens very very often.
The upper house isn’t govt. - the question was about govt policy.
You can skirt around if you like, the public order bill was an extreme policy put forward by govt. It was thankfully moderated by parliament (though not enough IMO) - but that doesn’t change the original policy.
"I am sure I mentioned the flights to Rwanda thing. How about Austerity that was extreme? The extreme cuts? To public services? The wage freezes for public sector workers for many years? The way Brexit was handled? The extreme deal they ended up with? Extreme tax cuts in the “kamikwasi” budget of 2022, which has lead to so many rates rise and added more problems to the cost of living crisis. Only a few highlights. Everything the tories did was because their ideology was skewed to extreme measures, when it fell flat on its face they had to backtrack and then spend more money clearing up the messes they created. Most of the crisis’s we’ve all faced was because of events they managed poorly. Example mismanagement due to austerity cuts in the NHS, led to an ill prepared service which was overwhelmed during the pandemic. Billions were poured to NHS to fix a problem of their own making. The problem with concrete, the school’s rebuilding program which was cut due to extreme budgeting by the tories. Now we have schools up and down the country unsafe and which could cave in. So when the tories do return after their stint out of office I would expect a repentant party, learning from the mistakes of their past, and being fit to govern. But not now. Too many years at the top, they need to sit down and have a cup of tea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/14/starmer-attacked-from-left-and-right-after-setting-out-plan-to-stop-channel-crossings What do we think? The left are hating him more and more by the day "I said I would wait for labour to actually draw up some plans instead kf just opposing everything the government does before jusdmmdging starmer His 2 recent outings of policy means he's alienating a lot of his core base again. Looks like I won't be voting Labour. A no vote election for me next time He really needs to improve his thinking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
