The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

How do you propose you stop them landing exactly and “if they do land” then you haven’t stopped them

If the political will existed to do so, there's nothing actually stopping doing what Australia did. Military to patroll coasts and stop arrivals. If necessary put them on safer boats and tell them to sail somewhere else. And if they do land, send them straight to somewhere far away, and deny all asylum applications, blacklisting them from ever seeking asylum ever again through proper channels. That's what Australia did. They did other stuff too like media blackouts.

This was highly controversial, probably illegal and arguably immoral. But it absolutely worked. And where's the sanctions against Australia? Where's the international outcry? Is Australia now viewed as a rogue state? No. No adverse consequences at all, just a problem solved.

Greece have just announced they are not accepting any asylum seekers for the next 3 months. That's illegal too, but they also have had enough.

As I say, this is fixable if anyone in the UK had the will to fix it. There's aspects we'd have to adapt and I am not proposing we do exactly what Australia did in practice. But we seem to think we are hamstring by international law, whereas if we wanted to, we could bend it temporarily.

Of course Starmer as a former human rights lawyer will not contemplate such measures for a nanosecond. Supporters would doubtless say that's a good thing. But it is a political choice.

 

[hampshireblue]

Its the Mail Hants, look carefully for those " hidden" Irish references - See above.

Thanks. It's really not helpful/sensible posting a headline with no context. Maybe we need a new thread category " Fuck all to do with Starmer/Labour but blame it on him/them anyway". Some on here would have a field day.

 

[threespires]

One of the biggest shames of the last few decades is how politicised, through ownership in particular, the media has become and it’s been that effective, both sides have managed to convince the other the bbc is somehow the biased one.

It’s the social media world we live in unfortunately though. Most won’t get past 160 characters, some will manage to get to the end of a newspaper article and even less than ever will seemingly read a book.

It’s a big part of why so many are going to extreme views so quickly (not talking about anyone on here specifically).

Despite the fact it does get talked about a bit I think this is a vastly under considered issue in relation to our democracy.

It's not only the ownership models though they are problematic, it's the business models themselves too now everything is digitised. Once upon a time we had to pay for our journalism in physical form and advertiser's payed for clearly demarcated ads too. What was journalism, what was marketing and the more murky area of propaganda were fairly easy to differentiate.

Now with the ascendancy of free and freemium models, journalism has given way mostly to marketing/propaganda and as the old saying goes - if you're not paying anything then it's you who are the product. Add in the short form nature of much of social media and it makes for huge dysfunction in relation to democracy.

 

[Vic]

Here you go. Anyone who thinks the article was intended to mislead, here's the IPSO link

https://www.ipso.co.uk/making-a-complaint/step-1 (Use the "something else" category of complainant)

You don't need to mention that @Hertzblue and others either fell for it or knew it was misleading - just that many did fall for it. Maybe some on here who did fall for it are so annoyed by their gullibility that they complain to IPSO.

 

[bluenova]

If the political will existed to do so, there's nothing actually stopping doing what Australia did. Military to patroll coasts and stop arrivals. If necessary put them on safer boats and tell them to sail somewhere else. And if they do land, send them straight to somewhere far away, and deny all asylum applications, blacklisting them from ever seeking asylum ever again through proper channels. That's what Australia did. They did other stuff too like media blackouts.

This was highly controversial, probably illegal and arguably immoral. But it absolutely worked. And where's the sanctions against Australia? Where's the international outcry? Is Australia now viewed as a rogue state? No. No adverse consequences at all, just a problem solved.

Greece have just announced they are not accepting any asylum seekers for the next 3 months. That's illegal too, but they also have had enough.

As I say, this is fixable if anyone in the UK had the will to fix it. There's aspects we'd have to adapt and I am not proposing we do exactly what Australia did in practice. But we seem to think we are hamstring by international law, whereas if we wanted to, we could bend it temporarily.

Of course Starmer as a former human rights lawyer will not contemplate such measures for a nanosecond. Supporters would doubtless say that's a good thing. But it is a political choice.

I know there's a lot of discussion about Australia, but one major difference is that they're the big regional power in that area. Most boats will be coming from much poorer countries, who have little power to challenge Australia.

Any similar policy in the UK, would involve sending boats back to France/the EU. France is one of our biggest trading partners, while 40% of our total exports go to the EU. When you consider all the other partnerships we have with France and the EU, it's a huge risk.

As you say, Australia isn't considered a rogue state, but sadly I suspect that self-interest tends to trump morals for many countries. If the UK were to try and start attempting* to return people to France, it wouldn't be just looked down upon morally, or result in a few frowns on the continent. We'd be burning major bridges, and the consequences could very quickly outweigh any savings costs.

*and I say attempt, as I don't see how it works in practice if France refuses.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I know there's a lot of discussion about Australia, but one major difference is that they're the big regional power in that area. Most boats will be coming from much poorer countries, who have little power to challenge Australia.

Any similar policy in the UK, would involve sending boats back to France/the EU. France is one of our biggest trading partners, while 40% of our total exports go to the EU. When you consider all the other partnerships we have with France and the EU, it's a huge risk.

As you say, Australia isn't considered a rogue state, but sadly I suspect that self-interest tends to trump morals for many countries. If the UK were to try and start attempting* to return people to France, it wouldn't be just looked down upon morally, or result in a few frowns on the continent. We'd be burning major bridges, and the consequences could very quickly outweigh any savings costs.

*and I say attempt, as I don't see how it works in practice if France refuses.

That's a fair point, and I don't know how it would work in practice. Maybe we wouldn't return them to France, but simply not let them land? If the boat is overloaded, put half of them in another boat and wave them off, "sail where you like but you're not landing here". Sounds incredibly harsh I know. Maybe even unworkable, I don't know. Maybe we just have to let a lot of them land and then send them to Rwanda and refuse all asylum seekers taking that route. As Australia did - i.e. if you attempt to arrive illegally, then we are cancelling your rights to asylum. Illegal yes, but do-able nevertheless. Australia did it. Greece is doing it at the moment.

 

[bluenova]

That's a fair point, and I don't know how it would work in practice. Maybe we wouldn't return them to France, but simply not let them land? If the boat is overloaded, put half of them in another boat and wave them off, "sail where you like but you're not landing here". Sounds incredibly harsh I know. Maybe even unworkable, I don't know. Maybe we just have to let a lot of them land and then send them to Rwanda and refuse all asylum seekers taking that route. As Australia did - i.e. if you attempt to arrive illegally, then we are cancelling your rights to asylum. Illegal yes, but do-able nevertheless. Australia did it. Greece is doing it at the moment.

What Greece is doing appears a little different. The people arriving are still allowed into Greece, but are being detained. They've paused asylum claims before when they had a big increase, then started accepting them again, and at the moment they're not saying this is permanent. It's not even clear to me what happens to those being detained when the temporary pause is up.

Pretty sure Rwanda said they'd only ever take a few thousand people in total, which would be used up pretty quickly.

I think we'll always disagree on the basics of this - I've worked with asylum seekers, and strongly support the system. But, putting that aside, the practicalities of any of the simple solutions never appear simple to me. I'd be happy for the boats to stop, but mainly because it's hugely dangerous.

 

[Chippy_boy]

What Greece is doing appears a little different. The people arriving are still allowed into Greece, but are being detained. They've paused asylum claims before when they had a big increase, then started accepting them again, and at the moment they're not saying this is permanent. It's not even clear to me what happens to those being detained when the temporary pause is up.

Pretty sure Rwanda said they'd only ever take a few thousand people in total, which would be used up pretty quickly.

I think we'll always disagree on the basics of this - I've worked with asylum seekers, and strongly support the system. But, putting that aside, the practicalities of any of the simple solutions never appear simple to me. I'd be happy for the boats to stop, but mainly because it's hugely dangerous.

You raise valid points and I have no issue with calm and sensible debate with anyone who disagrees. In fact I welcome it.

My understanding - though I would need to look more closely into it - is that Greece has not just paused the claims, they are rejecting all of them for 3 months. I'll do a bit of Googling in a minute.

But we have to face up to reality. It's not sustainable to keep taking people into the UK who are mainly young men, at these levels, with no idea of their background, skills, risk or usefulness to our economy, in perpetuity. It has to be reduced drastically.

So we either have to figure out a way to return most of them. Or we figure out a way to stop them wanting to come in such large numbers. The former would drive the latter anyway.

Maybe we just reject most if not all of the asylum claims? I am not sure what treaties that would break but countries break treaties all the time. The French were not allowed to ban British beef during the BSE crisis... but they did anyway. Happens all the time.

 

[ganganvince]

Inspiring.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Inspiring.

Milliband simply demonstrating that he is intellectually incapable of being Energy Secretary.

He could not get it into his head that the WHOLESALE prices are set internationally, not the RETAIL prices.

 

[hilts]

Inspiring.

Some want 'The Talent' to be paid more

 

[hampshireblue]

Inspiring.

Yet another link that some can't open.

 

[ganganvince]

Yet another link that some can't open.

Try that one

 

[Vic]

I might well be missing the point here, but is the argument that either

(a) energy companies should keep more of their windfall profits

or (b) that if they weren't taxed at 78% they would reduce prices to the consumer?

 

[ganganvince]

I might well be missing the point here, but is the argument that either

(a) energy companies should keep more of their windfall profits

or (b) that if they weren't taxed at 78% they would reduce prices to the consumer?

That taxation affects the retail price.

 

[Vic]

That taxation affects the retail price.

But if the wholesale price falls, the windfall tax would end.

I presume everyone knows it was introduced by Sunak.

 

[ganganvince]

But if the wholesale price falls, the windfall tax would end.

I presume everyone knows it was introduced by Sunak.

I am out, think you are missing the point

 

[threespires]

Hugely. They are very flawed. But everything's relative.

Oh Chippy, I enjoy reading some of your posts and I think you are sometimes harshly dealt with (your OP on the online safety bill being an example) but you've jumped the shark now. Granted we're in a bad way but what policies or capabilities do you think exist therein that would make things anything other than an absolute shit show that sends us down the plug hole completely? I'll happily admit the current government are struggling on multiple fronts but I'm sure sticking our collective tackle into a blender and selecting the high setting is not the answer and that's the best analogy I can think of for what you are suggesting.

 

[metalblue]

That taxation affects the retail price.

It’s not factored in to the price cap mate. The real slight of hand is that our price cap is based on the most expensive source, even if only 10% of all our leccy comes from this most expensive source we are all paying as if 100% did. That can dramatically increase profits for these energy companies that the government now taxes at 78% with the recently introduced windfall tax, so now it’s really just a tax on us, the consumer.

On top of that the price cap also includes a bunch of government policy such as renewables which we pay for but don’t see the benefit in our bills. Broadly we’re getting our pants pulled down, Ed Miliband is squirming not because he doesn’t know how it works but rather knows full well how it works but doesn’t want us to.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Oh Chippy, I enjoy reading some of your posts and I think you are sometimes harshly dealt with (your OP on the online safety bill being an example) but you've jumped the shark now. Granted we're in a bad way but what policies or capabilities do you think exist therein that would make things anything other than an absolute shit show that sends us down the plug hole completely? I'll happily admit the current government are struggling on multiple fronts but I'm sure sticking our collective tackle into a blender and selecting the high setting is not the answer and that's the best analogy I can think of for what you are suggesting.

We need a smaller government, costing less and meddlling with people’s lives less. The state needs rolling back. And neither the Tories nor Labour are going to do it.

There’s still VAST amounts of waste going on. It’s so endemic, so ingrained, that those in the system don’t even see it anymore. We don’t need a police force spending 80% of their time in the station filling out forms. We don’t need people with draws full of free prescription drugs, unopened and unused and then the next free batch arrives. We don’t need productivity through the floor with half the public sector “working” from home. We need people to be free to get on with their jobs.

Etc etc etc etc.

Who else is going to give the UK the kick up the arse it needs?