Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Oh dear. This is where it can go wrong for Starmer, when he tells us what a policy is. Today his "stop the boats" policy. We will invest in some sort of new and improved border force. Who will do what exactly? Sink boats, intercept them? Provide more taxi services to bring people ashore?
I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Tom8 said:
Oh dear. This is where it can go wrong for Starmer, when he tells us what a policy is. Today his "stop the boats" policy. We will invest in some sort of new and improved border force. Who will do what exactly? Sink boats, intercept them? Provide more taxi services to bring people ashore?
I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Sounds like a better idea than the Rwanda thing. You might "Oh dear" it but I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that.I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Randy Winkman said:
Tom8 said:
Oh dear. This is where it can go wrong for Starmer, when he tells us what a policy is. Today his "stop the boats" policy. We will invest in some sort of new and improved border force. Who will do what exactly? Sink boats, intercept them? Provide more taxi services to bring people ashore?
I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Sounds like a better idea than the Rwanda thing. You might "Oh dear" it but I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that.I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
chrispmartha said:
Tom8 said:
I don't think much of the Rwanda plan however it is proving to be a deterrent.
Is it? have the boats stopped then or been reduced since it was announced?Tom8 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Tom8 said:
Oh dear. This is where it can go wrong for Starmer, when he tells us what a policy is. Today his "stop the boats" policy. We will invest in some sort of new and improved border force. Who will do what exactly? Sink boats, intercept them? Provide more taxi services to bring people ashore?
I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Sounds like a better idea than the Rwanda thing. You might "Oh dear" it but I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that.I will be very interested to hear what Mrs Elphick thinks of this genius idea.
Tom8 said:
chrispmartha said:
Tom8 said:
I don't think much of the Rwanda plan however it is proving to be a deterrent.
Is it? have the boats stopped then or been reduced since it was announced?biggbn said:
Tom8 said:
chrispmartha said:
Tom8 said:
I don't think much of the Rwanda plan however it is proving to be a deterrent.
Is it? have the boats stopped then or been reduced since it was announced?From the BBC;
"Last week she claimed more than 80% of recent asylum claims were from people who arrived in the state by crossing the border with Northern Ireland.
But the British government has said it will decide who it accepts into the UK.
The Irish government has recently expressed concern that the UK's plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is encouraging more refugees to come to the Republic of Ireland."
Tom8 said:
chrispmartha said:
Tom8 said:
I don't think much of the Rwanda plan however it is proving to be a deterrent.
Is it? have the boats stopped then or been reduced since it was announced?Unless you are saying those who are saying they are concerned about safety in the channel are being disingenuous?
chrispmartha said:
The point of Rwanda was to be a deterrent to crossing the channel, so even if some try to get to ireland it hasn’t worked.
Unless you are saying those who are saying they are concerned about safety in the channel are being disingenuous?
It's totally obvious that a surge in crossing attempts would precede the introduction of a Rwanda policy, if it's a deterrent. Just like the Ireland effect. Saying 'it has not worked' would appear to be wishful thinking born of premature adjudication. We don't know fully as yet but the signs, so far are positive not negative. If it's a long-lasting deterrent, lives will be saved (drownings).Unless you are saying those who are saying they are concerned about safety in the channel are being disingenuous?
turbobloke said:
chrispmartha said:
The point of Rwanda was to be a deterrent to crossing the channel, so even if some try to get to ireland it hasn’t worked.
Unless you are saying those who are saying they are concerned about safety in the channel are being disingenuous?
It's totally obvious that a surge in crossing attempts would precede the introduction of a Rwanda policy, if it's a deterrent. Just like the Ireland effect. Saying 'it has not worked' would appear to be wishful thinking born of premature adjudication. We don't know fully as yet but the signs, so far are positive not negative. If it's a long-lasting deterrent, lives will be saved (drownings).Unless you are saying those who are saying they are concerned about safety in the channel are being disingenuous?
Then in the same paragraph
“Lives will be saved”
Ok.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff