To think Lowe is going to wipe the floor with Farage?

Which was several orders of magnitude more expensive than hotels and army barracks.

Well, I agree that they're struggling right now. But it's a long time before the next general election, and a lot could change between now and then.

And even if they are still struggling at that point, some of their fate will depend on whether or not any of the alternatives look remotely viable. And that is currently very uncertain.

Even if Starmer personally stood on the White cliffs with a rocket launcher laughing manically as he fired it at dinghies some people online would still complain that he was too soft/not listening to what people want. This is why, though I think there are really good reasons for Labour to get a handle on the asylum backlog and maintain control of border security, trying to out reform reform was never going to work.

Plus the cost of those rocket launchers.and rockets are surprisingly expensive and you just know some contractor would be in there making a profit somehow. And someone would definitely hit a French fishing boat by accident and start a war.

Well, perhaps they still will.

I imagine that taking down such well-established criminal gangs is a complex operation that will inevitably take time.

It isn't clear yet as to whether their efforts will make any difference. What is clear is that the Tories consistently failed to tackle the issue.

I think Labour are struggling given their GE pledges and if they can’t do as they thought they’ll probably be out. I didn’t believe it then so it’s no big deal but many did.

Rwanda??

Don't you understand the difference between immigrants who positively contribute whether they're footballers, doctors, engineers, nurses, etc., compared with the dinghy people who are going to end up undocumented/illegal working in car washes, turkish barbers, modern slaves or unemployed - who contribute nothing to the country?? Very few people have a problem with the former, but it seems more and more people are realising the ever growing problems of the latter.

If you go back to the GE and voting I think people believed they would smash the gangs. So I guess that.

I think some would prefer that we sink the boats and drown them.

Then where do you hold them while you process their claims? There isn't some limbo dimension available. You do need to be able to process people and that does cost time. It's not just judging their right to asylum thought that's important. It's finding out where they are from, taking biometric data so we know if they come back, liaising with the country they say they are from to take them back if thats possible..and it isn't always possible.
Even if it should be possible to speed the processes up.the time won't ever be 0. And even if you massively simplified the process, you would still have a backlog to clear so would need people to be put... somewhere while you did that.

The other solution is to install human trebuchets on the coast line but you just know some pensioner out walking their dog will be accidentally catapulted back to France or something.

So if not trebuchets what is it that "people" want?

Apparently they would smash the gangs not just move people. I mean it was nonsense from pre GE but some did buy it.

If Labour do just keep channel crossings as they are, or they go up, and use the barracks not hotels line they’ll struggle.

Suggest using barracks.

Not once they have claimed asylum they aren’t.

They did what?

Oh they did, I’ve had conversations with people who have suggested disused barracks, and people screaming about it online. As long as it’s NIMBY, eh? 🤣

I’m pretty sure people didn’t mean put them in barracks instead, is that what you think they were asking for? Where was that in the Labour campaign?

If that’s what Labour are relying on then no wonder they’re losing so many votes.

Can you shine any light on this? I'd never heard of him in the football ownership era? TIA.

Not if you claim asylum it’s not. It’s the on,y way for most to claim asylum.

Maybe so, but it’s supposed to get people out of hotels like people have been demanding.

‘’Put them in army barracks!’’ The minute they do they’re not happy about that either. It does seem as though the government can’t do right for doing wrong.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

I think Epstein destroys any argument that systemic abuse is an ethnic issue.

I’m in 100% agreement with you. It benefits the billionaires and far right if immigration continues because it works to destabilise Europe and provide a scapegoat so that disaster capitalists can keep getting richer.

I reckon if the boats stop if reform gain power it will be because his backers have stopped them coming because the tool is no longer of as much use, then they can claim victory. They will then start the full throttle demonisation of those who are here legally or other minorities. They won’t need the money from the asylum system anymore, they can get it elsewhere.

It seems so obvious to me and has been for a while what the game is.

The abolition of the ECHR and workers rights just allows explotion of citizens.

I am enjoying watching posters trying to frame a very wealthy man called Rupert, who went to boarding school, as a man who understands "working class people", while denigrating anyone who dislikes him as "university educated". I mean Rupert is also university educated but I suppose that doesn't count.

Labour’s barracks are costing more than the hotels they replace.

Lots of big companies have made money from immigration. Including vast profits housing refugees. I would love for that to be looked at, but it gets swallowed up in the "immigrants on 3 square meals a day in 5.star hotels" narratives which ignore the fact companies are charging vast amounts for very poor accommodation and creaming of the profits.

The Putin strategy is real but there are 2 parts to it
The first is to encourage/facilitate migration where possible.
The second is to seed as much anti-immigration messaging into the discourse as possible. That's how the destabilisation works. It's not that the plan is the immigrants will be doing the destabilising themselves. It's public upset that brings down/weakens governments.

Putin's definitely been doing both those things to countries bordering Belarus and Finland. It's been documented. They have also been taking advantage of ongoing migration movements (eg Ukrainian refugees in Poland) to spread anti migrant rhetoric. He can also ride on the back of existing migration causes (migration from Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq). He doesn't even need to encourage migration from there it's already happening. They just need to fan the flames on anti migrant discourse (the second step)
So "Putin wants to encourage migration" misses out the most major part of that strategy. That's not to say that all angry discourse on the levels of migration is really the doing of Putin. That would be ridiculous (and ignore real concerns). It's more that the Russians try to amplify and direct existing tensions than create tensions from nothing.

What's weirder than Russia (an adversary) pulling those sort of tricks is when it's a supposed ally like the US. Who (with the UK coming along for the ride) was responsible for much of the destabilisation of the ME which caused migration into Europe in the first place. Which they are now shouting about. Ho hum.