[Politics] General Election 2024 Official Thread

[Zeberdi]

David Lepper?
Lovely bloke, used to teach me at Falmer

No that was when I was in Brighton - I’m in Norfolk now - I was in the Labour Party for years in Brighton when David Lepper was MP for Pavilion - lovely man and I liked his wife, Jeanne, too. He and Steve Bassam (who was leader of the Council then) were very close acquaintances of mine which is how I got involved in campaigning for the referendum for the Falmer site.

 

[Stato]

FACT -

Is it? Let's check as we go shall we...

Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court

NOT FACT - The government, not the Labour Party was taken to court.

by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits.

NOT FACT - They didn't demand benefits. Asylum Seekers didn't and still don't qualify for benefits. The rules governing the levels of financial assistance that asylum seekers do receive preceed this court case.

Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer.

NOT FACT - The asylum seekers may have been represented by Starmer, but they were not 'defended' by him, because they weren't the defendants. The government was the defendant. Starmer was one of several lawyers acting for those parties who brought the case against the government.

This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

NOT FACT - Before the court case, asylum seekers were already provided with financial assistance and accommodation. The court case was to challenge legislation that said that such assistance could be refused based on how soon after arriving the asylum claim was made. All the case did was rule that assistance that was already available couldn't be refused on such grounds. The responsbility for governments to provide assistance to those seeking refuge has been UK law under various statutes since 1948.

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

FACT - Of course, only you really know the answer to this one, but I'm happy to take your word.

Info from: - https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-court-illegal-immigrants/

 

[chickens]

Is it? Let's check as we go shall we...


NOT FACT - The government, not the Labour Party was taken to court.


NOT FACT - They didn't demand benefits. Asylum Seekers didn't and still don't qualify for benefits. The rules governing the levels of financial assistance that asylum seekers do receive preceed this court case.


NOT FACT - The asylum seekers may have been represented by Starmer, but they were not 'defended' by him, because they weren't the defendants. The government was the defendant. Starmer was one of several lawyers acting for those parties who brought the case against the government.


NOT FACT - Before the court case, asylum seekers were already provided with financial assistance and accommodation. The court case was to challenge legislation that said that such assistance could be refused based on how soon after arriving the asylum claim was made. All the case did was rule that assistance that was already available couldn't be refused on such grounds. The responsbility for governments to provide assistance to those seeking refuge has been UK law under various statutes since 1948.


FACT - Of course, only you really know the answer to this one, but I'm happy to take your word.

Info from: - https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-court-illegal-immigrants/

He’s Sorry Phil now.

 

[stewart12]

You sound like a politician!

No, I sound like someone who knows what they're talking about

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I would rather not have these US origin battles being replayed in the U.K. for the benefit of wealthy Americans with more money than sense.

I accept what you say regarding conflict in U.K. politics, it has always been there, but I am firmly of the belief that if we don’t reverse our direction of travel with a political result that renders these projects null and void, we will effectively be circling the plughole of US style politics and just awaiting the inevitable internal conflict ourselves.

In this instance I would like to see these Conservatives being non-entities in terms of votes cast for them. I doubt it’s achievable, but the alternative feels utterly bleak to me. We are making incredible technological advances, yet at the same time moving backward with regard to being a civilization.

I don’t want our political differences leading to mass brawls, insults and gangs (armed or otherwise) - this lot want us polarised and angry. That seems to me to be exactly what the future holds if we reward this and allow it to take root and flourish.

I don't really know quite what you're referring to. I think UK politics is pretty toxic on all sides. People on both left and right (I don't like these lablels but accept them for the moment) are mostly obstinate and convinced that their perspective represents a sort of decent, common-sense centreground. I just refuse to believe that this monolithic sense of being 'correct' is the preserve of only one side or the other. I see it everywhere I look.

Will we all get cosy and consensual if the Tories get wiped out at the next GE? Of course not. Not only will the right be pissed-off and start to regroup (very possibly shifting more rightwards as they do so) but the traditional left will get quickly frustrated with Starmer and Reeves as it's suddenly clear (even clearer than it is now) that they're not radical socialists after all but a party seemingly committed to more of the same. I agree that UK politics is in a critical situation but I just don't believe that any single party, acting alone, has the answers. While the Tories have been chaotic, Labour refuses to even mention the two principal causes of the global turndown -- the pandemic and Ukraine. Not a single mention of these issues in Labour's analysis of the country's woes.

What's the answer? IMO, the only thing that can save us is electoral reform and some form of PR or STV system. This has been discussed elsewhere here, and I know it's controversial for some as it would mean the end to single-party government. But that's what I like about it. It will force consensus on us, and make us take a more collaborative approach to government. For me, this will be the start of a gradual de-polarisation of politics. All that said, I don't see how it will come, apart from a hung parliament with power being shared between Labour and LibDems. As in 2010, it will give the LibDems an opportunity to demand electoral reform, or another referendum on the issue -- ideally this time with them setting out a much clearer and more attractive proposal.

So that's what I'm rooting for -- a hung parliament in 2024.

 

[jackalbion]

I don't really know quite what you're referring to. I think UK politics is pretty toxic on all sides. People on both left and right (I don't like these lablels but accept them for the moment) are mostly obstinate and convinced that their perspective represents a sort of decent, common-sense centreground. I just refuse to believe that this monolithic sense of being 'correct' is the preserve of only one side or the other. I see it everywhere I look.

Will we all get cosy and consensual if the Tories get wiped out at the next GE? Of course not. Not only will the right be pissed-off and start to regroup (very possibly shifting more rightwards as they do so) but the traditional left will get quickly frustrated with Starmer and Reeves as it's suddenly clear (even clearer than it is now) that they're not radical socialists after all but a party seemingly committed to more of the same. I agree that UK politics is in a critical situation but I just don't believe that any single party, acting alone, has the answers. While the Tories have been chaotic, Labour refuses to even mention the two principal causes of the global turndown -- the pandemic and Ukraine. Not a single mention of these issues in Labour's analysis of the country's woes.

What's the answer? IMO, the only thing that can save us is electoral reform and some form of PR or STV system. This has been discussed elsewhere here, and I know it's controversial for some as it would mean the end to single-party government. But that's what I like about it. It will force consensus on us, and make us take a more collaborative approach to government. For me, this is will be the start of a gradual de-polarisation of politics. All that said, I don't see how it will come, apart from a hung parliament with power being shared between Labour and LibDems. As in 2010, it will give the LibDems an opportunity to demand electoral reform, or another referendum on the issue -- ideally this time with them setting out a much clearer and more attractive proposal.

So that's what I'm rooting for -- a hung parliament in 2024.

I agree that we need a change of political system, but there does need to be a radical new look at how we deal with austerity, because the system at the moment isn't promoting growth in my opinion.

 

[chickens]

I don't really know quite what you're referring to. I think UK politics is pretty toxic on all sides. People on both left and right (I don't like these lablels but accept them for the moment) are mostly obstinate and convinced that their perspective represents a sort of decent, common-sense centreground. I just refuse to believe that this monolithic sense of being 'correct' is the preserve of only one side or the other. I see it everywhere I look.

Will we all get cosy and consensual if the Tories get wiped out at the next GE? Of course not. Not onlu will the right be pissed-off and start to regroup (very possibly shifting more rightwards as they do so) but the traditional left will get quickly frustrated with Starmer and Reeves as it's suddenly clear (even clearer than it is now) that they're not radical socialists after all but a party seemingly committed to more of the same. I agree that UK politics is in a critical situation but I just don't believe that any single party, acting alone, has the answers. While the Tories have been chaotic, Labour refuses to even mention the two principal causes of the global turndown -- the pandemic and Ukraine. Not a single mention of these issues in Labour's analysis of the country's woes.

What's the answer? IMO, the only thing that can save us is electoral reform and some form of PR or STV system. This has been discussed elsewhere here, and I know it's controversial for some as it would mean the end to single-party government. But that's what I like about it. It will force consensus on us, and make us take a more collaborative approach to government. For me, this is will be the start of a gradual de-polarisation of politics. All that said, I don't see how it will come, apart from a hung parliament with power being shared between Labour and LibDems. As in 2010, it will give the LibDems an opportunity to demand electoral reform, or another referendum on the issue -- ideally this time with them setting out a much clearer and more attractive proposal.

So that's what I'm rooting for -- a hung parliament in 2024.

On the electoral reform point I am absolutely with you, FPTP must go.

I’m genuinely amazed that you aren’t seeing any difference between the dog whistle rhetoric being used by our current government, compared to either the current opposition or governments that went before though.

 

[Guinness Boy]

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

I'm afraid you've just been owned by @Stato

He probably won't want to take you for a walk though, just in case someone blows a dog whistle.

 

[chickens]

I agree that we need a change of political system, but there does need to be a radical new look at how we deal with austerity, because the system at the moment isn't promoting growth in my opinion.

Completely agree, you can’t starve your population into growth.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

On the electoral reform point I am absolutely with you, FPTP must go.

I’m genuinely amazed that you aren’t seeing any difference between the dog whistle rhetoric being used by our current government, compared to either the current opposition or governments that went before though.

Either I see too much social media, or (more likely) I see the world through a different lens. I've no great commitment to any party whereas I suspect you might. This is absolutely not a criticism. Think what you want. But I've been fascinated by politics since 1970 (and did a degree in it as it happens -- though that's not where I really learnt about it). I just find it hard to get too invested in any side, and prefer to try to understand why people believe the things they do, rather than fall in with one side or the other. I think that while the mechanisms of political discourse -- the way we evaluate and discuss things, the way that parliament operates, the way we have to vote for representation, the way we rely on slogans -- remain so clearly broken and wrong, I can't get too invested in any leader or party. I think getting older has something to do with it as well. I think I've lost all sense that I can effect change.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

Your FACT is not true. Don’t believe what you read on Facebook, or what your mate down the pub tells you.

Keir Starmer 2003 court case is not the reason asylum seekers get support - Full Fact

A Facebook post claims that Keir Starmer took the government to court so “illegal immigrants” could receive benefits. This is inaccurate.

fullfact.org

 

[jackalbion]

Completely agree, you can’t starve your population into growth.

Well I just don't think it functions well, I can only really use my own experience since the pandemic in my own industry, but cutting, cutting, cutting rail services isn't encouraging growth at all. It's just making the service worse and less attractive to use, and it seems to the case for everyone and every industry.

 

[Bodian]

Your FACT is not true. Don’t believe what you read on Facebook, or what your mate down the pub tells you.

Keir Starmer 2003 court case is not the reason asylum seekers get support - Full Fact

A Facebook post claims that Keir Starmer took the government to court so “illegal immigrants” could receive benefits. This is inaccurate.

fullfact.org

I can see where Surrey Phil got his words from. Facebook isn't known as the best place to find FACTS!

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

 

[Guinness Boy]

I can see where Surrey Phil got his words from. Facebook isn't known as the best place to find FACTS!

View attachment 170181

Incredible. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

David Lepper?
Lovely bloke, used to teach me at Falmer

I left in 84

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

[Deleted]

I’m not going down that road again

 

[Billy the Fish]

NOT FACT - They didn't demand benefits. Asylum Seekers didn't and still don't qualify for benefits. The rules governing the levels of financial assistance that asylum seekers do receive preceed this court case.
Info from: - https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-court-illegal-immigrants/

As always with these "FACT"/"NOT FACT" type of exchanges, this isn't a FACT. I've read the link which contains this:

Asylum seekers can receive financial assistance from the government—typically £47.39 a week, or £9.58 if their accommodation provides food. This support is lower than the standard Universal Credit rate of £73 (for those aged under 25) or £92 a week (for over 25s), and Universal Credit recipients can also receive more money if they meet certain criteria, such as having children or if they’re disabled. If an asylum seeker’s claim is approved and they are given refugee status, then they may be able to claim benefits.

Accommodation for asylum seekers who are eligible is supplied by private sector providers who have been contracted by the Home Office, including rooms in hotels.

So they can claim accommodation and £50ish quid a week. A form of benefits surely?

The court case Mr Starmer was involved in challenged Section 55 of the then-Labour government’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which permitted the Home Office to refuse financial support or accommodation to asylum seekers if the Home Secretary was “not satisfied that the claim [for asylum] was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom”.

And HMG is required by law to provide this.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong to give this support, you can't just throw people on the streets. If they addressed the matter properly with a decent policy and actual pathways to claim asylum we wouldn't need to put people in expensive hotels or on dodgy prison ships. It clearly a good enough incentive to risk crossing the channel in a dinghy.

But that's really just a qualifier (before anyone accuses me of being a right wing evil tory) for me to say this thread might as well be renamed "A thread full of semantics, political point scoring and FACTS (that aren't really facts)"

 

[Stato]

As always with these "FACT"/"NOT FACT" type of exchanges, this isn't a FACT. I've read the link which contains this:


So they can claim accommodation and £50ish quid a week. A form of benefits surely?

And HMG is required by law to provide this.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong to give this support, you can't just throw people on the streets. If they addressed the matter properly with a decent policy and actual pathways to claim asylum we wouldn't need to put people in expensive hotels or on dodgy prison ships. It clearly a good enough incentive to risk crossing the channel in a dinghy.

But that's really just a qualifier (before anyone accuses me of being a right wing evil tory) for me to say this thread might as well be renamed "A thread full of semantics, political point scoring and FACTS (that aren't really facts)"

You either didn't read the whole link or chose to omit this bit, which seems very clear:

"There are a number of inaccuracies in this post. While asylum seekers who may be at risk of destitution are provided with financial assistance and accommodation, including hotels, by the government, they are not allowed to apply for mainstream welfare benefits (for example Universal Credit) and therefore do not receive benefits. "

In truth, if this government actually wanted to do anything to save money from the public purse rather than just use asylum seekers as a human shield for their own inadequacies, they could have just changed the law that prevents them from working whilst waiting for their claims to be processed.

 

[Billy the Fish]

You either didn't read the whole link or chose to omit this bit, which seems very clear:

"There are a number of inaccuracies in this post. While asylum seekers who may be at risk of destitution are provided with financial assistance and accommodation, including hotels, by the government, they are not allowed to apply for mainstream welfare benefits (for example Universal Credit) and therefore do not receive benefits. "

In truth, if this government actually wanted to do anything to save money from the public purse rather than just use asylum seekers as a human shield for their own inadequacies, they could have just changed the law that prevents them from working whilst waiting for their claims to be processed.

The point I'm making is that it's not a black and white answer and nothing ever is. This thread will be a lot more interesting if everyone accepts that.

The Facebook post you're replying to is clearly not right and you've called it out, fair enough. But you've ended up quoting an article that plays semantics with what constitutes a benefit. You've cherry picked a single phrase and then accused me of not reading the whole article when the article clearly states that asylum seekers are entitled to benefits, just not mainstream benefits like UC, CB etc.

 

[nicko31]

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

Never mind the Tories post-Brexit immigration numbers.

Sunak under pressure as net migration to UK hits record 745,000

Ex-home secretary Suella Braverman calls 2022 figures slap in face for public but ONS signals levels may be coming down

www.ft.com