Exactly. But imagining that scenario is far easier than imagining Starmer enacting policies that actually do solve the issues at hand.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Exactly. But imagining that scenario is far easier than imagining Starmer enacting policies that actually do solve the issues at hand.
They say so, but are pretending. Once in government they'll be grand with asylum seekers. It is known.
Does he say long term? I mean the state of housing in the country caused by the tories means there’s basically none for them anyway. Seems like a logistical issue as opposed to a fundamental ‘this is OK’.
Starmer did say back at the start of April that any use of military bases for asylum seekers should be reversed(Nothing to do human rights and more to do with aesthetics)
but well it’s August now so camps are staying for at least 6 months into a Labour government.
In that situation surely they'll be replaced with other similar politically advantageous policies, rather than totally divergent, less popular ones?
I wish we would stop peddling this ‘legacy of the dambusters’ narrative as though the dambuster mission did anything for the the war effort beyond killing German civilians and making their lives miserable. It’s not something we should be celebrating in the slightest.
Personally as long as they are free to come and go on a military base I think that's better than on a fecking barge which doesn't have adequate fire safety measures. Though I do get that the optics make them look like internment camps. It seems to me that the only humane places to put these people up are either social housing (which the Tories haven't built) or hotels. Wherever they go it will be at the taxpayer's cost so we have to ask ourselves as a society how we want to treat other human beings in their times of need. Seems the answer currently is like they're dirt.
Why?
Surely the focus and objective is to increase the speed of processing the asylum claims? Tory smokescreens of moving asylum seekers around the country is designed to create tension and diversion, yet the real crux of the conversation of processing those claims gets put to one side whilst both sides of the political spectrum raise their pitchforks over whether certain sites are suitable to house individuals.
What's more politically advantageous than improving people's lives.
Do you feel that's what the UK populous tends to vote for? If so why isn't Starmer running his current campaign on that basis?
No, I think most electorates vote against their self interests.
But they will also vote for their self interests if, once in government, Starmer pivots to more left-wing policies? This is truly a rather delusional theory on every level.
Exactly, which is why it's likely Starmer enacts the same type of policies to stay in power and he's proposing to take power.
To be fair Starmer has been saying the problem is the speed of the asylum claims. The problem is loads of civil servants got made redundant after the financial crisis and have never really been replaced.
My wife’s visa renewal took almost a year from when she applied.
1. He is literally saying he isn't going to do those policies.
2. He will have to continue to appease the base elements of society and the media to keep them onside, and to be re-elected.
It is such a ridiculous and persistent narrative that I have to ignore everything that Starmer says and does, and simply vote for Labour because secretly they are definitely planning to do all this amazing shit.
The plan is:
1) campaign on tory (not-that-lite) policies
2) do amazing leftist stuff for 3 years or so
3) campaign on repealing all that amazing stuff to get re-elected
That is where the gaslighting has happened though, as people who are trafficked across the Channel aren’t arriving illegally, in the exact same way that women trafficked across borders for sex gangs don’t arrive illegally.
They are the victims of BOTH the lack of ‘safe routes’ and the people-traffickers. It’s the job of our HO to find out if they have viable reasons for seeking asylum.
There are viable answers to stopping this and it involves the exploitation that we control - the safe routes issue.
No, the REAL problem is getting those who have been refused asylum out of the country faster... Apparently anything other than that is leftist nonsense.
And that’s where you need an appropriately staffed, funded and efficient HO, so that more than a poxy 1-2% of applications get processed a year.
But that’s too much like hard work for the people who’ve been in charge for 13yrs.
Sorry, what vote will they have once the labour party are in power? Unless you think all decision are done by referendum?
Why? They don't work?
If you actually improve lives, improve the economy and things are going well, how are you going to be unelected?
This is possibly the weirdest interpretation I've seen.
It's an accurate summary of what you just said. Promise anything to get power and then break all pledges and do the opposite.
If that's your thinking now, does it not apply to the subsequent election? Or are Labour having broken all their pledges going to magically convince everyone they can be trusted again?
It's a sure fire way to a one term government.
It's extremely weird indeed, so can you clarify how they'd get re-elected if they enact policies when in government that they had to hide and lie about to get elected in the first place?
I was talking about re-election.
Because he won't improve lives, in my opinion.
Your whole thought process here is so bizarre. But let's assume that Starmer does have loads of great ideas that he simply can't state at the moment because both elements of the public and the press will castigate him, leading him to lose the election. What will simply happen is he will then unveil them after winning the election and get a massive slagging off from the press for being a) a lefty and b) having no conviction. Then he will U turn. And that is the best outcome here, the one that actually assumed Starmer does have these policies.
Hope I'm wrong and you're right, to be honest. But even if that is the case, that scenario relies on Starmer ripping up his election promises.... which might not be ideal also.
All this discussion is based on the premise that the electorate is sane and logical. Large part of it is definitely not
Which is why they would be hiding all these great policies in the first place. The whole reasoning is insane.
So why is he proposing them now?
Again, I think everyone in here really overestimates the publics capacity for in-depth thought.
"Oh no, we actually built ten hospitals, reduced GP waiting times, and lowered inflation - shit, they're going to turf me out because I didn't send immigrants to Rwanda.
They don't hide their policies ffs, they're in their manifesto, you're talking about when Starmer is asked in a vox pop or interview what he would do.
Why?
Because they're popular with the morons in this country/make it harder for the right-wing press to vilify him.
So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier
Could let them on passenger trains through the chunnel too I guess. British politicians set themselves up to fail when they said the boats need to stop.
It's yet another prime example of their stupidity and inability to think things through in the bigger picture. They saw a dinghy or two and thought to themselves that's an easy promise, we rule the waves. All while knowing feck all about fecking anything, true Tory style.
Nah, just people don't understand how to win elections.So, these great policies will be in their manifesto but he will lie about them when asked publicly, even though they're great and will grant them re-election. I think I'll leave it here, your argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier