Reply to: Change!

[SueEllen]

Wrong again. Labour have been against the Rwanda scheme for a long time, and have said several times they would cancel it (without, it has to be said, putting anything else in its place other than another useless Quango). The tipping point was not the manifesto nor the date of the election, but when it became likely that Labour were going to win the next election.

You seem to have forgotten the weather has a lot to do with when people cross.

Anyway most of the migrants here have come via official methods.

[WTFH]

Wrong again. Labour have been against the Rwanda scheme for a long time, and have said several times they would cancel it (without, it has to be said, putting anything else in its place other than another useless Quango). The tipping point was not the manifesto nor the date of the election, but when it became likely that Labour were going to win the next election.

And if you think the manifesto (any of them) are anything other than a PR plan to convince to vote for you and represent actual intentions post election, then you are clearly more deluded than I am.

And when was this tipping point? Because most of the graphs that seem to be coming out do not show a massive reduction.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3I4T9/21/

[malvolio]

Rwanda scheme became law in April 2024, Labour manifesto came out 2 weeks ago. To say that it was a clear deterrent for < 2 months and that based on the last 2 weeks it's had a massive increase, that seems to be pushing it a bit. No one knew when the election would be, apart from Rishi and the gambling club.

Wrong again. Labour have been against the Rwanda scheme for a long time, and have said several times they would cancel it (without, it has to be said, putting anything else in its place other than another useless Quango). The tipping point was not the manifesto nor the date of the election, but when it became likely that Labour were going to win the next election.

And if you think the manifesto (any of them) are anything other than a PR plan to convince to vote for you and represent actual intentions post election, then you are clearly more deluded than I am.

[WTFH]

The Rwanda scheme did seem to act as a deterrent for a while, but a soon as Labour said they would scrap it, that has stopped.

Rwanda scheme became law in April 2024, Labour manifesto came out 2 weeks ago. To say that it was a clear deterrent for < 2 months and that based on the last 2 weeks it's had a massive increase, that seems to be pushing it a bit. No one knew when the election would be, apart from Rishi and the gambling club.

[malvolio]

But that same EU also has a directive saying the first country that can house an immigrant should be the one that processes them. I fail to see that happening for someone who comes here via France.

.. France, Greece, Italy, Spain Poland, Austria or Germany, come to that. Hence the rise of right wing sentiments across Europe.

The Rwanda scheme did seem to act as a deterrent for a while, but a soon as Labour said they would scrap it, that has stopped.

[WTFH]

Oh, I see that if I want to check anything on the Labour policies, there's a new Twitter account called Tax Check UK. It's a bit like Fact Check UK that was set up at the last general election. Completely independent, definitely full of integrity and facts and not at all anything to do with the Conservative Party (although I tried to place a bet that it was, and no one would take it)

[NigelJK]

They can't go back because in UK law is an earlier EU directive that prevents a country sending someone back to a country where they may face discrimination, cruel or unusual treatment or worse up to and including execution.

But that same EU also has a directive saying the first country that can house an immigrant should be the one that processes them. I fail to see that happening for someone who comes here via France.

[SueEllen]

The Honeytrap has been arrested today in Islington.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvv3lq79dro

The Labour party have been told that a member of their party has been arrested today in Islington.

[malvolio]

Definitely need to define them better. None of the parties have done that very well if at all. Illegal, legal, economic or whatever the different types are and comment on each approach rather than just one 'migration' bucket that we can't discuss/fix which just is useless.
On the illegal one I don't see enough though. Process them as in getting tougher with who can come in and when the fair deport them quickly. Or process them as in just accept them all. Are we going to see an amnesty on everyone already here or what. It just doesn't sound tough talk like the other parties but all that said and done, what they say they will do and actually do are two different things anyway I guess so pointless worrying about it.


This what I mean. Is he copying it because I haven't seen much evidence of them saying so? If they are then I've missed it and my question is answered, but the last line is the problem and I don't see what Starmer is going to do to fix it. So I mean open season as in nothing has changed and won't for a long time and there is no deterrent.

They can't go back because in UK law is an earlier EU directive that prevents a country sending someone back to a country where they may face discrimination, cruel or unusual treatment or worse up to and including execution. That's why the people arriving on our beaches can't go back to France until the French enact something to allow it to happen (hence Rwanda, which quite a few EU members are now looing to implement themselves). Given the continental drift to the tight, that ain't going to happen...

[northernladuk]

It's not getting much publicity, because it's not headline-grabbing.
They want to process people, rather than paying to keep them in hotels/boats/etc. Once processed, if they are accepted, they can then join the workforce. I don't think that's opening the floodgates.
They want to ban employers from sponsoring migrant workers if the employers break employment laws (e.g. paying their staff below minimum wage). They are talking about training up UK workers where there are skills gaps being filled by sponsored migrants, and possibly bringing back a resident labour market test - i.e. you can't bring someone in from abroad if there's someone already here who can do the job.

Are there specific areas of migration that they need to focus on, such as ignore 95% of migrants to single out those who come by boat, because they are an easy target?

Definitely need to define them better. None of the parties have done that very well if at all. Illegal, legal, economic or whatever the different types are and comment on each approach rather than just one 'migration' bucket that we can't discuss/fix which just is useless.
On the illegal one I don't see enough though. Process them as in getting tougher with who can come in and when the fair deport them quickly. Or process them as in just accept them all. Are we going to see an amnesty on everyone already here or what. It just doesn't sound tough talk like the other parties but all that said and done, what they say they will do and actually do are two different things anyway I guess so pointless worrying about it.

Starmer is copying the Tory rhetorical that people will be sent back if they are from Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Clearly they can't and it is very easy for someone from one of those countries to show why they can't be sent back by being an enemy of their state.

This what I mean. Is he copying it because I haven't seen much evidence of them saying so? If they are then I've missed it and my question is answered, but the last line is the problem and I don't see what Starmer is going to do to fix it. So I mean open season as in nothing has changed and won't for a long time and there is no deterrent.

[malvolio]

Starmer is copying the Tory rhetorical that people will be sent back if they are from Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Clearly they can't and it is very easy for someone from one of those countries to show why they can't be sent back by being an enemy of their state.

It seems Labour aren't saying anything about a lot of things right now!

I was reading an analysis by our old friend Philip Ross on Li yesterday. Reading between the mostly optimistic nonsense lines of his polemic I got the impression that they are planning to route any kind of freelance/client interaction through an intermediate body - a bit like a trade union for non-employees - to ensure fair treatment of things like late payment and - whoo hoo! - employee rights and protections...

Pretty glad I'm out of it all now. At least, until they bugger up my pensions...

[SueEllen]

I'm totally confused what Labour is doing about immigration. I hear the border force but that's going to be absolutely useless. Nothing about what to do about the ones that slip through, the existing situation and anything at all to deter. It looks more like they've opened to doors than addressed it. Am I missing something?

Starmer is copying the Tory rhetorical that people will be sent back if they are from Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Clearly they can't and it is very easy for someone from one of those countries to show why they can't be sent back by being an enemy of their state.

[dsc]

It's all nice and dandy saying what you plan to do, but this is just waffle, it's like taking a list of what doesn't work and making a new list by putting "fix" in front of each bullet point from the original list. Where the hell is the money coming from considering the budget deficit is huge and the debt costs are sky high?

Take for example the migrant problem, aren't they currently on boats / hotels to be processed? the main issue with migrants is that most have no documents, how the hell do you process people with no documents? also, what about those who are not processed cause they have no skills? Resident labour market test I'm all for, but the question is, why isn't it in place already? the problem with employers bringing in migrant workers is mostly paying them below market rate which is the effect of the government own bloody visa program as they make up market rates there and say you can pay 80% of those.

[WTFH]

I'm totally confused what Labour is doing about immigration. I hear the border force but that's going to be absolutely useless. Nothing about what to do about the ones that slip through, the existing situation and anything at all to deter. It looks more like they've opened to doors than addressed it. Am I missing something?

It's not getting much publicity, because it's not headline-grabbing.
They want to process people, rather than paying to keep them in hotels/boats/etc. Once processed, if they are accepted, they can then join the workforce. I don't think that's opening the floodgates.
They want to ban employers from sponsoring migrant workers if the employers break employment laws (e.g. paying their staff below minimum wage). They are talking about training up UK workers where there are skills gaps being filled by sponsored migrants, and possibly bringing back a resident labour market test - i.e. you can't bring someone in from abroad if there's someone already here who can do the job.

Are there specific areas of migration that they need to focus on, such as ignore 95% of migrants to single out those who come by boat, because they are an easy target?

[northernladuk]

I'm totally confused what Labour is doing about immigration. I hear the border force but that's going to be absolutely useless. Nothing about what to do about the ones that slip through, the existing situation and anything at all to deter. It looks more like they've opened to doors than addressed it. Am I missing something?