Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The law on asylum seekers as explained by a KC. It includes the UN 1948 and 1951 legislations.
The law on asylum seekers as explained by a KC. It includes the UN 1948 and 1951 legislations.
1. call electionNot at all, I wasn’t speaking for myself or giving my views one way or the other on that specific policy or any other.
Simply my view on what the Labour Party need to do in order to take power:
Produce a credible effective fully costed manifesto providing solutions for today’s political problems.
At the moment Labour have all the power by virtue of staying quiet and not giving failing Tories any ammunition. The hustings and debates after manifesto is released don’t give Conservative strategists time to play the long PR game of slagging off Labour ideas for years before an election.1. call election
2. produce manifesto
i'm afraid you'll have to a while for all the excitement
Oh, I see.That Labour will not replace the borders bill, they will only amend it. Whilst I welcome the desire to speed up the processing of applications, the focus on creating another border force and renewing return agreements with EU countries (which does need to happen) still smacks of pandering to those who demonise asylum seekers and refugees as criminals and a problem. Labour has to my knowledge said nothing about securing new safe and legal routes that will reduce the market for people smugglers to exploit.
Not a word about the immorality of this government's action, just a reassurance to the public that they will be more effective in dealing with this 'problem'. I understand that they're maybe some realpolitik behind this stance, but to me it just stinks.
The UK does far less than any other comparable country for refugees and asylum seekers yet these people are seen as convenient scapegoats for our ills by the leaders of both major parties
They will.Not at all, I wasn’t speaking for myself or giving my views one way or the other on that specific policy or any other.
Simply my view on what the Labour Party need to do in order to take power:
Produce a credible effective fully costed manifesto providing solutions for today’s political problems.
Precisely.Your first point explains why I disagree with your second. They were elected by winning seats in working class areas. They did this by focusing on the EU and immigration as the major problems for those communities. The real reasons they are not thriving are far more to do with the underinvestment and demise of manufacturing industry. They cannot / will not do anything to respond to those challenges because the potential solutions are either too expensive, or too Keynesian to fit their free market ideology. In those circumstances, they can't admit their impotency, so they need a convincing alternative explanation. Putting the blame on 'others' is a long established tactic of right wing populist politicians. Proposing seemingly simple solutions to very complex problems is another.
I see Starmer's position differently. Labour in opposition in the UK is in opposition to the current government, but is also effectively opposed by the majority of owners of media outlets. Starmer's reticence on this and a lot of other issues reflects that his present job is not to promote debate, but to get himself elected. To do this, he believes that he is better advised to focus attention on the faults of the government, than to propose alternatives that he is currently powerless to implement. Doing the latter would just encourage his opponents to focus on attacking his proposals, leaving him on the defence instead of attacking the government. This unspoken truth is why I have more patience with his seeming ineffectiveness than most on the left do. Corbyn openly went to war with the media and though his supporters loved him saying the things that they wanted to hear, he gave the media what it needed to destroy his credibility with a particular segment of working class voters. At present, the best that they can do with Starmer is say that he's boring. Given the endless supply of 'exciting' politicians that his opponents have inflicted upon us, a bit of tedious stability might be welcomed by a lot of us. I don't seem him as a good political campaigner, but as a proven sound admistrator. As you suggest, the real test of him will come if and when he is elected.
They will.
I hope they don't publish it till days before the election, though.
The election won't be won by votes from the likes of you or me. It will be won by the whim of a swathe of floating voters, hopefully forgetting that recently they mostly believed that Corbyn-Labour want unrestricted immigration and a seat in the house of lords for Gerry Adams.
Apart from what we already know, what is it about France / the French that asylum seekers find so unacceptable and unpalatable they they won't claim asylum there?
It's a genuine question. I really don't understand what the attraction of the UK is compared to France.
We are a lot more lenient.
Asylum applications - annual statistics - Statistics Explained
The latest statistics on asylum applicants in the EU are presented.ec.europa.eu
We grant to a higher percentage of people than anywhere else in the EU.
We don’t have ID cards and can’t tackle illegal working as other nations do.
We have a huge backlog and people know it could take years to assess their claims. The longer they remain, the greater the chance of an amnesty.
The best thing about having the press on one's side is that you can continually chip away at asylum seeker laws and introduce some of the most draconian systems in the world, cut off any and all legal routes to seeking asylum in your country, out source your responsibilities to a third country and slow down the processing of applications to snails pace all the while convincing your electorate that you are more lenient than other countries and a 'soft touch's.
Keep drinking the Kool aid people.
This is a good post.Your first point explains why I disagree with your second. They were elected by winning seats in working class areas. They did this by focusing on the EU and immigration as the major problems for those communities. The real reasons they are not thriving are far more to do with the underinvestment and demise of manufacturing industry. They cannot / will not do anything to respond to those challenges because the potential solutions are either too expensive, or too Keynesian to fit their free market ideology. In those circumstances, they can't admit their impotency, so they need a convincing alternative explanation. Putting the blame on 'others' is a long established tactic of right wing populist politicians. Proposing seemingly simple solutions to very complex problems is another.
I see Starmer's position differently. Labour in opposition in the UK is in opposition to the current government, but is also effectively opposed by the majority of owners of media outlets. Starmer's reticence on this and a lot of other issues reflects that his present job is not to promote debate, but to get himself elected. To do this, he believes that he is better advised to focus attention on the faults of the government, than to propose alternatives that he is currently powerless to implement. Doing the latter would just encourage his opponents to focus on attacking his proposals, leaving him on the defence instead of attacking the government. This unspoken truth is why I have more patience with his seeming ineffectiveness than most on the left do. Corbyn openly went to war with the media and though his supporters loved him saying the things that they wanted to hear, he gave the media what it needed to destroy his credibility with a particular segment of working class voters. At present, the best that they can do with Starmer is say that he's boring. Given the endless supply of 'exciting' politicians that his opponents have inflicted upon us, a bit of tedious stability might be welcomed by a lot of us. I don't seem him as a good political campaigner, but as a proven sound admistrator. As you suggest, the real test of him will come if and when he is elected.
No sorry, I've been on threads about asylum seekers for longer than I care to remember sharing information, links and everything else. I can't compete with the papers and I need to work today.So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?
Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?
Can you advise?
Just to remind you, we're an island!!!So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?
Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?
Can you advise?
No sorry, I've been on threads about asylum seekers for longer than I care to remember sharing information, links and everything else. I can't compete with the papers and I need to work today.
Your questions are good though and worth exploring.
Just to remind you, we're an island!!!
Good questions!So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?
Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?
Can you advise?
There is a unified strategy. The UN have created it.No worries.
Personally the problem and blame lies solely with the government. They’ve underfunded government departments for far too long as you wont fix any issue with reactionary nonsense like this.
The UK, needs to work with the EU to devise a united strategy and undertake a consistent framework.