So who is going to be brave enough to ask whether Shabana Mahmood's proposed reforms are right/sensible/racist?

I may be wrong, but I think I heard that 20 years is the maximum.
And that that time would be reduced for people who contribute/integrate to the country.

Which would be a rational proposal.

At the moment, it seems like you can get here, get someone pregnant (even before your case has been decided), and immediately claim a right to family life under the EHCR and then the courts block your deportation.

Perhaps though, would-be immigrants would be wise not to have children without thinking about the consequences - i.e. can you support them without recourse to benefits, and are you prepared to uproot them and move home again. This latter point is not that much different to people who (legally) move from UK to Australia, Germany, Canada, etc and then decide it's not the country for them (or lose their job there) and repatriate.

I think in this debate we always focus on the outliers.

If someone has been accepted here as a temporary refugee during a conflict, say, and does not support themselves or their family during that time, and does not look like they will do better in the future - why shouldn't they go back to their country of origin?

I think here on MN we'd say any man doing that was a cocklodger and tell the woman to kick him out rather than carry on supporting him.

Labour have to deal with the reality of what we have now, not what we'd like.

Public opinion has shifted.

But i do agree Labour shouldn't try to out Reform, Reform but they can deal with migration AND still be a left of centre party and deal with the longstanding issues we face.
She mentioned 700 Albanian families living in tax payer funded housing, no one should be defending that, we cannot provide refuge for all the worlds poor.

Unfortunately for Labour, they face a v hostile media, todays news was all about Labour splits/bank bench MPs scupper her plans etc etc & how it wont work.

Contrast this with how Tory plans were greeted.

I agree with every single word of this and I share your concerns.

I think it's a huge shame that Labour believe that changing their rhetoric to appease people will actually appease people and stop Reform getting elected. I mean, I understand why they have to try it, politically speaking. But the reality is that you're never going to shift most people's entrenched views. Take the mumsnet audience, for example, and one or two frequent posters in particular.

"Labour aren't doing enough about immigration! It's time they listened to us - we're not racist!"

Labour: "Ok, here's something".

"It's not enough!"

Labour: "Ok, here's more. And we're also now going to talk more like Farage."

"Ha! We see you. We see through you."

Labour: "No, honestly. We really are completely genuine about this. Here's some policies that lots of people have been calling for, but the Tories never did."

"No, sorry. We don't believe you. You've made the country worse in 18 months than the previous government did in 14 years."

Because the problem is actually that Farage has been extremely effective at selling one lie: solve immigration and all your woes will be solved. It doesn't matter that Brexit was a failure at doing what it was marketed to do. It is him who has divided this country, assisted by the press. It is him who has empowered and legitimised openly racist views to be shared, frequently. That's not me saying that everyone who is concerned about immigration is racist, by the way. But he's almost entirely responsible for opening the door to, and amplifying, those who are.

You cannot out-Farage Farage. In trying to, all Labour is doing is selling its soul to the highest bidder in the vague hope that it'll stop him marching into Number 10. It won't. Because this was never really about immigration, but the dangerous ambitions of one man who wants power at any cost.

I know that Reform voters don't like others drawing a comparison with 1930s Germany. But the German people had absolutely no idea what they were voting in, either. They didn't vote for mass deportations, front doors knocked down and lofts raided. They didn't vote for extermination camps and the invasion of other countries. They voted for control of their borders, German jobs for German people, bread on the table, a heated roof over their heads. They were sold a lie. Yet we're not allowed to draw those comparisons, are we?

I really hope that Labour's tough, new immigration rhetoric is successful at keeping Farage out of Downing Street. But I suspect that instead it will further divide the nation and push many Labour voters further left, splitting the vote and enabling quite the opposite.

I found it interesting so I posted it 🤷‍♀️

I’m happy to engage with others.

If you were a cynic you might think other parties have deliberately overplayed the impact of the ECHR in order to leave.

Not about being interested or not.

Its about being clear that Labour can bring in these reforms whilst staying IN the ECHR.

Other parties are arguing differently for their own reasons, which not for our benefit.

It was easy to copy and paste if you’re not interested scroll on by.

Well you did go on and on about Denmark's situ, which is hardly relevant.

I thought perhaps you didn't realise we had left the EU

Really you didn’t need to waste an @ on that.

Which is NOT leaving the ECHR and is exactly what Labour have proposed.

Just 2.5% of asylum claims have been rejected in UK courts due to ECHR legislation.
And amazingly only 13 in the Strasbourg court, since 1981.

The only reason Reform/Tories want to leave the ECHR is to roll back British rights and have even less protections.

@EasternStandard We aren't in the EU.

In terms of countries outside the bloc’s laws Denmark is different. Not related to that but more the EU restrictions.

However, Denmark also benefits from a unique legal situation: Though a member of the European Union, it is not subject to European Law in many instances.

This is because, after a failed referendum in 1992 on the EU's Maastricht Treaty, the country was granted an opt-out clause from shared EU laws so that the treaty could still come into force.

In the case of immigration law, this meant that the EU had to assure Denmark that it would not have to participate in the bloc's common asylum policy.

Other EU nations — such as Germany — do not have an opt-out clause and would therefore be in breach of EU law if they pursued similar laws to deter migrants and refugees from reaching their shores.

In fact Denmark wants to amend the ECHR to make it easier to expel foreign criminals and to control immigration more.

The Danish government wants to alter how domestic courts interpret the ECHR, looking to align the convention with stricter national laws on immigration..

Yet Denmark, a strong supporter of the ECHR has no problem having pretty much exactly the same policy, which has reduced their migration issues.

Successful Asylum claims in Europe are falling, how come if the ECHR is the block?

Its just another excuse as to why they failed, both parties, to secure and control the border.

I think they would as most people who are very worried about immigration aren’t actually ‘fascists’. Nor do they want the death penalty, complete decimation of anything state owned, or actual racism. You’d be surprised.

Badenoch made this offer precisely because of "party politics"

She was in Govt, along with Philp as Asylum claims shot through the roof, they did nothing about this.

Should Labour take this up, she'd be crowing "Look, Labour are weak, they need us"
Which of course with a large majority they do not.

If Labour backbenchers scupper these plans, then they really do reserve to lose the next GE but it looks very much like the numbers who would oppose any of this is very small.

If Labour do as proposed, they might actaully win a second term and keep the fascists out. I can’t as of yet for a minute believe they will do it though.

Obviously the center left Danish government is a good model. We should also follow other Danish examples like banning people from outside the UK buying our properties and inflating our house prices.

I agree if the Labour backbenchers rebel against a Labour Government on this whilst at the same time the Conservatives are supporting the Labour Government then it is pretty much over for the Labour Government.

You would effectively have the Conservative party propping up the Labour Government against their own Labour MPs.

To be fair it is not just the Labour backbenchers opposing this, the Liberals are also in opposition

Germany have made a deal with the Taliban: returnees in return for aid.

Apparently Germans are fine with that, however I really can’t see giving taxpayers’ money to one of the most murderous regimes on earth being exactly a vote winner here.

This govt are a hypocritical and gutless bunch, and I would be amazed if anything they do would go as far as we need. But I welcome the shift in tone. Got there in the end 🙄

Ok, the screenshot put up says 'leave'.
Isn't part of the proposal by Labour including looking into some amendments? Unless I heard wrong for which I apologise.

Edited, link doesn't work but prob find it ok for a read :-)

Not leave. But reform / amend. As Jack Straw describes.

https://www.archivebuttons.com/articles?article=www.independent.co.uk/voices/echr-migration-small-boats-shabana-mahmood-b2866526.html

Badenoch has to try her best to make herself and her party look like they're still relevant. That's what motivates this more than a genuine desire to do anything, which was notably absent in their last decade in government. However, if it gets this through and avoids the suicidal sabotage manoeuvres of backbenchers, then that's a gain. I don't get how they seem unaware that opposing this is as good as forfeiting the next election right now.