General election

[JockyBrewer]

They did spend, but they borrowed far less than I had always assumed, or had been led to believe. The growth of our borrowing and national debt under The Conservatives the past 14 years is absolutely terrifying, and should put paid to any idea of Tory economic competence.

They also spent it on good stuff like public services that paid back in taxes first, but also had multiplier benefits for years.

That was the real tragedy of Tory austerity - they did the complete opposite, cutting spending on services that was negatively multiplied.

 

[Brew_DD2]

4. Pick up illegals at sea and returning them to France

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Posts deleted again this morning.

Please take the personal stuff to pm don't post it here and again can I ask members to stay on topic I know threads often wander here but I want this one to stay on topic as its a busy thread, if you ignore this request your privilege to post in this thread will be removed.

 

[foxy]

What John Caudwell says is just an opinion, but I can see where he is coming from in switching allegiance. We had the same musical chairs for leadership in Australia with our liberal government, we saw it with the previous labor government. Nothing more off putting than changes in leadership. The Tory party needs to go and take the opportunity to re-group. J.C. is really hoping to get the economy back on track.
My worry would be would Starmer move back to his roots as a left wing socialist or keep his promises about the economy coming first?
The economy needs to be fixed, on top of that I would bring back corporal punishment in schools, bring back the birch and give police more powers to search individuals for concealed weapons.
But unfortunately I really do think not much is going to change, apart from the change of government. Investors like to see a profit when investing, there are plenty of investment opportunities in the third-world offering good returns to what the UK could offer.

 

[Beer-Kosh]

I'm quite surprised that the Lib Dems have such low polling numbers. Everyone who looks at it objectively says that they are a pretty reasonably middle ground. No-one seems to hate them and they come up with policies that most people agree with when you ask them (blindly, without saying who's policy it is). So I wonder why they always seem to do pretty lowly in the ballots. Is it a case that people are still angry at them over tuition fees in the coalition government, or is it just that the world is so polarising these days that no-one wants the middle ground - everyone wants an extreme?

They also blatantly ignored the referendum result. Not good for democracy.

 

[lancon]

They also blatantly ignored the referendum result. Not good for democracy.

What was not good for democracy was the referendum.

 

[Kerby]

What John Caudwell says is just an opinion, but I can see where he is coming from in switching allegiance. We had the same musical chairs for leadership in Australia with our liberal government, we saw it with the previous labor government. Nothing more off putting than changes in leadership. The Tory party needs to go and take the opportunity to re-group. J.C. is really hoping to get the economy back on track.
My worry would be would Starmer move back to his roots as a left wing socialist or keep his promises about the economy coming first?
The economy needs to be fixed, on top of that I would bring back corporal punishment in schools, bring back the birch and give police more powers to search individuals for concealed weapons.
But unfortunately I really do think not much is going to change, apart from the change of government. Investors like to see a profit when investing, there are plenty of investment opportunities in the third-world offering good returns to what the UK could offer.

Corporal punishment doesn’t work long-term:

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2002/06/spanking

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health

https://assets.publishing.service.g...2016-01_pb-corporal-punishment-in-schools.pdf

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology-...l_briefing_physical_punishment_april_2024.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946887/


Both my parents were teachers, my dad in some pretty rough Glasgow schools during the 1960’s where the belt was regularly used. The headmaster”s measure of success was if “Teacher’s Surname is a B@$¥ard” was chalked up on the school wall, it was pretty barbaric. I also taught, but mainly college and University for more than a decade and honestly I don’t know what the answer is (although I suspect it starts with parents taking responsibility to instil values and respect from a young age) but beating kids isn’t it.

 

[old dog new tricks]

Do you agree with the 4 point plan?

If not please answer each point and explain dont just say no.


Reform UK

4 point-plan to stop the boats

1. Leave the ECHR - No I can not support this as others have said I also strongly agree with human rights and the blanket ban on referral to ECHR is not viable and open to legal challenge, a more workable option would specific wavers decided by UK courts for example, I do not think any government has the right to over rule the judicial systems of their country. Ultimately ECHR is the final safety net to protect everyone and should be embraced not shunned.

2. Zero illegal immigrants to be settled in the UK - I may get slated for this but in principal yes I agree, if all legal process have been fully exhausted circumventing them should not be an option, that is like saying I applied for a loan but was refused so I stole it as the process did not help me, that would not be tolerated why should breaking the law in any other sense be ok? To caveat this I can only support this if the UK adopts fair and honest application processes that can be applied for outside the UK and processed in a quick and efficient manner. In essence if the system allowed immigrants to legally apply from outside the UK then there should be no need to come here and enter illegally. On this basis I would support a zero tolerance approach to stop the ridiculous attempts to get into the UK driven by the farcical system that means you can only apply when you are on UK soil total madness that encourages the illegal crossings.

3. A new Department of immigration -Do not think a whole new department is required BUT the current department needs a complete overhaul and fully resourced. As previous answer it needs to be capable of processing applications from outside the UK, surely a tie in with FCDO is possible here to ensure we remove the need to be in the UK to apply. It should also be noted that for the last 20 years the headcount has reduced not plummeted, BUT the ratio of senior staff has dropped considerably, resulting in many lower grades taking on tasks of more senior grades this has been ignored by all the parties

4. Pick up illegals at sea and returning them to France - This is not currently possible as no agreement exists, but why just France, why can we not agree return to place of birth (if safe), or return to wider geographical area to load all illegal immigrants onto France is not fair or viable. Also the sheer logistics of patrolling every inch of the seas is unrealistic. I will get stick for this but if there are legal routes open and available yet some choose to ignore this then they should be treated as criminals, and such treated as criminals ie not put up in a hotel but jailed or deported. As i say only valid if there is legal and available routes into the UK available outside the UK

 

[Chippy_Tea]

5 live are reporting 880 plus people came here by boat illegally yesterday the most in a day this year, Rishi hasn't stopped them how is Starmer going to do it?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Have labour said anyone earning £55,000 a year Is not working class, I caught the end of a discussion on the radio and it sounded like they have said this.

 

[Brew_DD2]

5 live are reporting 880 plus people came here by boat yesterday the most in a day this year, Rishi hasn't stopped them how is Starmer going to do it?

Abandoning the ludicrous Rwanda scheme and getting round the table with the Europeans would be a start.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Nigel Farage blames admin error for candidates praising Hitler​

Nigel Farage blamed failures by a “reputable vetting company” for a slew of controversies which have hit election candidates standing for his Reform UK party in recent weeks.

Farage wants to run the country - the ultimate job in administration - but can't even manage the admin of seeing if his candidates are a bit Nazish?

And as usual with Farage it's all bluster and incompetence - the company they're blaming doesn't do vetting as such, it's a small software company that provides software that enables parties to vet their own candidates. If they've really done something wrong, then no doubt Reform will successfully sue them for breach of contract - but in reality they will launch a lawsuit full of thunder before the election, then quietly withdraw it after the election.

 

[Agentgonzo]

Farage wants to run the country - the ultimate job in administration - but can't even manage the admin of seeing if his candidates are a bit Nazish?

And as usual with Farage it's all bluster and incompetence - the company they're blaming doesn't do vetting as such, it's a small software company that provides software that enables parties to vet their own candidates. If they've really done something wrong, then no doubt Reform will successfully sue them for breach of contract - but in reality they will launch a lawsuit full of thunder before the election, then quietly withdraw it after the election.

• We picked this candidate
• Your candidate is pro-Nazi
• That's someone else's fault for not checking his background
• You picked this candidate. Surely you checked them out yourselves
• <Changes the topic>

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Abandoning the ludicrous Rwanda scheme and getting round the table with the Europeans would be a start.

France cannot stop them coming across and are never going to agree to take the ones we catch on the way over back, the UK is obviously still viewed as the land of milk and honey so they are going to keep trying to get here how do they stop them?

I honestly don't think they can.

 

[Brew_DD2]

France cannot stop them coming across and are never going to agree to take the ones we catch on the way over back, the UK is obviously still viewed as the land of milk and honey so they are going to keep trying to get here how do you stop them, I honestly don't think they can.

It's not in France's interest to stop them, and frankly why should they?

We could go a long way to fixing it over night with proper application and processing centres. It's a political decision not to address this properly. The government isn't being honest.

 

[Rodcx500z]

We could go a long way to fixing it over night with proper application and processing centres. It's a political decision not to address this properly. The government isn't being hones

For once DD i agree with you on this, my view the government had no intention of stopping the boats and i don't think Labour will be any different

 

[Chippy_Tea]

It's not in France's interest to stop them, and frankly why should they?

I thought they were already stopping those that they catch trying to leave.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I thought they were already stopping those that they catch trying to leave.

Half-arsed. We give them money to, but they have a much much higher level of immigration than we do. It's not really in their interests to stop people leaving.

 

[An Ankoù]

France cannot stop them coming across and are never going to agree to take the ones we catch on the way over back, the UK is obviously still viewed as the land of milk and honey so they are going to keep trying to get here how do you stop them, I honestly don't think they can.

We used to have the Dublin agreement, which regulated asylum seeking throughout the EU and is the linchpin of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Britain seems to have dropped out of that system and so is unprotected and has, frankly, no recourse. Who's fault is that?

It's a common misconception, in fact it's a blatant lie, that an asylum seeker has to ask for asylum in the first safe country he arrives in. In fact he or she can claim asylum anywhere he or she likes, but the CEAS prevented multiple demands for asyum.
One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state.[2] The country in which the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting the claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.
That's a milion miles from having to apply in the first safe country.

 

[old dog new tricks]

We used to have the Dublin agreement, which regulated asylum seeking throughout the EU and is the linchpin of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Britain seems to have dropped out of that system and so is unprotected and has, frankly, no recourse. Who's fault is that?

The Dublin Agreement ended when Brexit was fully enacted and no replacement was agreed.

The position is further exacerbated by the short sighted position that means you cannot apply for asylum unless you are physically in the UK, its utter madness we have no meaningful return agreements and this ridiculous policy