Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

They need to have a good long look at where they've ended up. They've bought into the bullshit conflation of illegal immigration and legal and beneficial migration - we're at the 'bloomin furriners' stage, and forgetting that they are humans just like us.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Labour will be hailing this as a massive win, and an indication that they have finally arrived at exactly where they need to be.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Seems like Mahmood is completely legitimising Farage and Yaxley-Lennon this morning and having her refugee announcements endorsed by the far right. I guess she's been radicalised by X, but I'm at a total loss how Labour can think that following her down this rabbit hole is going to win an election for them, let alone square this with a moral conscience, or the needs of a country that is going to rely increasingly on immigration to keep vital services functioning. 'Blue Labour' is completely indistinguishable from Reform now.

I think it's odds-on that the PLP will oust Starmer/GlasmanMcSweeney after an electoral wipeout at the local elections.

What she said was: "I know illegal migration is causing huge divides here in our own country, and I do believe we need to act if we are to retain public consent for having an asylum system at all."

Like it or not, and whether this is an issue exacerbated by politicians or not, it is an issue that has to be addressed or IMO it will only lead to further success for Reform, a further hardening of policies from the Tories and a fall in votes for the Labour Party.

There is the question of how much politicians should try to change public perception and how much their policies need to reflect it and, for the Labour Party it is a circle that must be squared.

Is this a pragmatic compromise that is unfortunately necessary to help regain public confidence or a compromise too far? I must admit I am conflicted on this point because it is undoubtedly a major cause of division in the country.

 

[briantrumpet]

Further... genuinely these sentiments would have been the same as uttered in Germany in the 1930s.

Point 1 - yes, it is engaging with far-right talking points - that's why you're doing it.

Point 2 - it's not in itself, but the far-right and the media have managed to amplify it to such a degree that people think it's tearing the country apart. It wouldn't be tearing the country apart if politicians like Mahmood had more courage and showed why migration is not only beneficial but crucial to the UK.

Point 3 - see above - persuade them that an alternative viewpoint is not only possible but more beneficial.

 

[briantrumpet]

What she said was: "I know illegal migration is causing huge divides here in our own country, and I do believe we need to act if we are to retain public consent for having an asylum system at all."

Like it or not, and whether this is an issue exacerbated by politicians or not, it is an issue that has to be addressed or IMO it will only lead to further success for Reform, a further hardening of policies from the Tories and a fall in votes for the Labour Party.

There is the question of how much politicians should try to change public perception and how much their policies need to reflect it and, for the Labour Party it is a circle that must be squared.

Is this a pragmatic compromise that is unfortunately necessary to help regain public confidence or a compromise too far? I must admit I am conflicted on this point because it is undoubtedly a major cause of division in the country.

But by framing it as exactly as Reform or Britain First would do, she's making the problem worse, and stoking the division, and every time that happens, a practical and humane solution becomes even more difficult.

 

[BoldonLad]

No. Why do you ask?

It was in jest, you don’t typically agree with Andy 😊

 

[BoldonLad]

No my dealings are in the commercial side

As I thought 😊

 

[BoldonLad]

What she said was: "I know illegal migration is causing huge divides here in our own country, and I do believe we need to act if we are to retain public consent for having an asylum system at all."

Like it or not, and whether this is an issue exacerbated by politicians or not, it is an issue that has to be addressed or IMO it will only lead to further success for Reform, a further hardening of policies from the Tories and a fall in votes for the Labour Party.

There is the question of how much politicians should try to change public perception and how much their policies need to reflect it and, for the Labour Party it is a circle that must be squared.

Is this a pragmatic compromise that is unfortunately necessary to help regain public confidence or a compromise too far? I must admit I am conflicted on this point because it is undoubtedly a major cause of division in the country.

IMHO, a realistic view of

We have visitors at the moment. Both former Labour voters. They live in Kent, (Medway area), they are no longer Labour voters. I have no idea if their description of their local town is accurate, but, even if it is only half as bad as they say, they may have a point.

 

[briantrumpet]

IMHO, a realistic view of

We have visitors at the moment. Both former Labour voters. They live in Kent, (Medway area), they are no longer Labour voters. I have no idea if their description of their local town is accurate, but, even if it is only half as bad as they say, they may have a point.

I was going to compose a thoughtful response, then saw this, which saves me the effort of using up my Letraset. It's a failure of the system, and should be dealt with by recognising the failure and improving the system, rather than demonising those who have been failed both in where they've come from and where they've ended up. The UK is going to need working-age people, and they are willingly coming here, but we're making it too hard for them to contribute, because they are seen as a problem and not a solution.

 

[BoldonLad]

I was going to compose a thoughtful response, then saw this, which saves me the effort of using up my Letraset. It's a failure of the system, and should be dealt with by recognising the failure and improving the system, rather than demonising those who have been failed both in where they've come from and where they've ended up. The UK is going to need working-age people, and they are willingly coming here, but we're making it too hard for them to contribute, because they are seen as a problem and not a solution.

View attachment 11080

Hmm, I am unsure if you agreeing or disagreeing. It seems to me that the Tories screwed up (can’t let THEM off the hook), now, Labour are screwing up. The recipients of this can’t be blamed for turning to an alternative. What are their options?

 

[Pblakeney]

I was going to compose a thoughtful response, then saw this, which saves me the effort of using up my Letraset. It's a failure of the system, and should be dealt with by recognising the failure and improving the system, rather than demonising those who have been failed both in where they've come from and where they've ended up. The UK is going to need working-age people, and they are willingly coming here, but we're making it too hard for them to contribute, because they are seen as a problem and not a solution.

View attachment 11080

I thought it was telling this morning when it was said that "illegal migrant refugees" should apply through legal routes.
Which are?

 

[briantrumpet]

Hmm, I am unsure if you agreeing or disagreeing. It seems to me that the Tories screwed up (can’t let THEM off the hook), now, Labour are screwing up. The recipients of this can’t be blamed for turning to an alternative. What are their options?

I'm not disagreeing that communities in Kent might be justified in being pissed off, as well as the people who have ended up en masse in their communities.

At the moment the only 'solution' that seems to be being considered is deporting working-age people and their families, or making life as difficult as possible for them, to 'deter others'.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Further... genuinely these sentiments would have been the same as uttered in Germany in the 1930s.

Designed to cut off any discussion. Nothing to see here move on.

Point 1. When the far right is gaining support - as it clearly is - you cannot just stick your fingers in your ears singing lalalalala or you give them the microphone.

Points 2&3. They have been trying to get that message out for years. It has not been done well and not gained much traction, takes time and sometimes you need to buy time to get a message across.

Brexit and the possible collapse of the traditional political parties are both symptoms not causes of the division in this country demonising immigrants and I must admit to a growing pessimism that it can be resolved by just sending out nice messages.

 

[briantrumpet]

Designed to cut off any discussion. Nothing to see here move on.

Point 1. When the far right is gaining support - as it clearly is - you cannot just stick your fingers in your ears singing lalalalala or you give them the microphone.

Points 2&3. They have been trying to get that message out for years. It has not been done well and not gained much traction, takes time and sometimes you need to buy time to get a message across.

Brexit and the possible collapse of the traditional political parties are both symptoms not causes of the division in this country demonising immigrants and I must admit to a growing pessimism that it can be resolved by just sending out nice messages.

Point 1 - I'm not, I'm saying that politicians should be leading, not amplifying. Trying to ape Reform is simply giving them the microphone. The point about the message mirroring that of 1930s Germany is pointing out that it's not the first time that forces have tried to demonise the people who 'aren't like us', and it never ends well. It would soften the rhetoric and differentiate it from 1930s Germany if they didn't frame them all as being an 'other' and the cause of the problems. (And obviously it's not cutting off discussion, as you're discussing it.)

This isn't to say that uncontrolled migration is the solution to everything, but if Labour were to both espouse the benefits of willing working-age people wanting to contribute to the UK whilst humanely designing better systems to filter and process claims, you might have something better than Reform's hateful 'scare off immigrants by being hostile to people not born in the UK but already living here' rhetoric.

We're going to end up with a shrinking economy and an aging population that won't be able to be supported by a shrinking workforce. But, yeah, no foreigners coming here. Yay.

 

[Rusty Nails]

This isn't to say that uncontrolled migration is the solution to everything,

So do you disagree with Mahmood that control of numbers is necessary? IMO effective control needs to involve not just streamlining the asylum seeking process but also following through on the decisions, and of course selling the benefits of immigration.

But, yeah, no foreigners coming here. Yay

Having read what Mahmood and Labour have said on the subject I must have missed it when they said that bit.