Why do Labour not get it?

But do you agree the rhetoric around asylum seekers is problematic?

I’m not surprised. I’m not sure why Labour want this.

I’m not particularly interested in who says they can do it. Everyone will vote for whoever anyway.

If crossings keep going up and we get to another GE without change so another five years of increases it will be a problem.

There’s a couple of places it could diverge eg French election or other. But generally increasing numbers will cause issues.

Unrest could be stopped by not making asylum seekers scapegoats, changing the rhetoric around asylum seekers by both politicians and media.

Reform has nothing to offer other than being anti immigration. And they have no realistic policies on how to deal with the boat crossings.

They plan to house 300 migrants in Inverness army barracks. The barracks are really close to one of the biggest secondary schools in the Highlands which is surrounded by trees. Its also within minutes walk of the city centre. Inverness already has a huge shortage of housing for local people, a shortage of doctors and dentists.

Locals are absolutely furious and the backlash has already started. Its not safe to house hundreds of unchecked migrants next to a school and Highland council have had no say in this decision. There are loads of uninhabited islands of Scotland they could host them in until settled status is given if applicable but instead the government have chosen to do this.

Yeah I’m just going on all the 19yo reform council leaders but maybe he’ll get some better MP candidates? Hopefully ones with a better work ethic than Farage had when an MEP. My local Labour MP had a career in various postings as part of the diplomatic service. So not Westminster at all. Seems quite well travelled actually.

No deal Brexit meant the UK lost access to the security databases (Eurodac and SIS) that checks if refugees have claimed asylum already in other EU countries.

This isn’t true. You know migrants do stay in ROI, Germany and other countries when they entered via first countries prior to that?

Yes it was going ahead the court ruling was overcome by legislation.

It’s not impossible to resolve this. If it’s not resolved after the next GE I think unrest will become even more problematic.

On channel 4 news tonight the migrants said they were desperate to return to the uk because Brexit meant Uk was the only country where they wouldn’t be forced to stay in the first place of possible refuge. Meaning that Brexit may have caused this huge rise in arrivals.

The Inverness barracks isn't remote. It's right in the middle of town near schools and walking distance to the shops

The Rwanda Plan was illegal, do you really think it was going ahead?

Labour will indeed struggle to stop the boats, just as the Tories did.

Reform's plans to stop them are bonkers and the costs will be very high

That doesn't mean we should demonise and dehumanise asylum seekers.

Likewise, and thanks 😀

@EasternStandard, I have enjoyed debating this with you today. I really appreciate you keeping things on topic and not descending to personal insults as many on this and other thread have. Thank you.

Not sure about that. Many things cost them the GE. It was going ahead in any case and Starmer scrapped it.

His replacement was smash the gangs. Some believed it would work, if it doesn’t he’ll struggle.

Rwanda was illegal, Labour was right to scrap it and not reintroduce it.

Rwanda cost the Tories the election

Human Rights compliant off shore centres would be a good plan and Labour was reported to be looking into it.

I am curious as to suggested approaches for dealing with the issue with zero cost

Very obviously nothing can be done at no cost at all, @JHound, but that's no reason to agree deals with insensate costs attached which are clearly out of all proportion to what's being provided

Unfortunately there's a reason why so many providers regard a government contract as "a licence to print money", and all too often it has to do with a complete inability to negotiate allied to zero accountability

Well two things there, Rwanda no, offshore processing yes. The latter is just as costly as here and numbers just as high. The former a deterrent.

Starmer can’t reintroduce something he scrapped on day one, that would be madness politically. Although making that decision to scrap it could cost him the next GE.

I thought that was the plan (I did not pay close attention.)

No I know, under @JHound's suggested plan I meant.

Not under the Tory Rwanda Plan.

The Georgian wedding venue near me is probably not what you'd call cushy but certainly not a slum.

Will those who's asylum claim is approved be able to settle in the UK?

Arrogance imo.

I was a life long paid up Labour supporter, never again.

He should. I think he started aping Farage by using the term, which is not good. Trying to out-Reform Reform is something that Labour needs to ditch.

The Home Office uses the term irregular migrants.