Ok fine if you can’t articulate the differences there probably aren’t any that stand up to scrutiny.
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 11:45
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 11:33
You’ll have to say more on why.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 11:27
I’m sure you’re familiar with the reasons why the Australia policy doesn’t easily translate to the Channel. It’s lazy to ignore the very obvious differences.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 11:12
Australia has pretty much stopped deaths at sea. If we had the same here I’d bet even the left wouldn’t vote it out. As they haven’t there.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 11:10
Who has resolved what, people trafficking? Who has resolved that?
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 11:05
Obviously neither. I’d rather they looked at who has resolved it.
Which tbf Labour won’t do.
Edited
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 11:01
Would you rather a government that ignored these crimes, or said ‘I don’t think we can fix this’?
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 10:28
Yes a highly lucrative crime that Labour believes they can end. We’ll see.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 10:26
Yes, surprisingly enough highly lucrative crime that spans multiple countries isn’t ended in two years so they will indeed have to carry on. At least they actually started to do it though eh?
There are roughly 800 men in asylum accommodation nearby. I don’t see them and I haven’t heard a great deal of people mention them now the place is settled. The centre created a fair few jobs in an area that needed it.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 10:22
Two years in and they’ll have to keep smashing the gangs. They might get through this if they do. Only squashing objections won’t fix the problem.
Plus asking people to wait doesn’t actually help anyone in Piddington.
Would you be ok with 1000 plus men waiting for asylum in mass accommodation nearby to you?
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 10:18
I don’t think it’s immediately obvious that one results from the other unless you assume that trafficking gangs can be ‘smashed’ overnight. Surely people understood that pledge to mean ‘we’re going after the bad guys’. Which they have. By mid-2026, Home Office data shows
74% year-on-year increase in organized immigration crime arrests
Workplace raids up by 77% compared to previous administration.
Since July 2024 17,000 local arrests for illegal working
46% increase in Organised Immigration Crime disruptions and seizure of more than 500 pieces of small boat equipment.
Asylum applications in 2026 are the lowest for four years
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 10:11
Yes look at the words ‘which meant’ it’s obviously what they sold to people. So barracks are not going to be a win.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 10:10
Perhaps you meant to say that but what you actually said was:
Labour ran on ‘smash the gangs’ so that. They set up a pledge which meant no barracks.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 10:09
I said they pledged to smash the gangs.
If they do as some believed they would they wouldn’t need barracks or HMOs.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 10:07
Labour didn’t pledge not to use barracks.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 10:05
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 10:04
You think you saying it is enough? Ok. Well, they didn’t.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 09:59
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 09:58
I confess I missed that pledge, remind me?
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 09:21
Labour ran on ‘smash the gangs’ so that. They set up a pledge which meant no barracks.
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 09:14
No, they didn’t, but the use of military sites was well established by the previous governments.
Where did hotel protesters imagine AS would be moved to, do you think? They can’t all have been foolish enough to think their protests would lead to summary removals.
Quoting Switchnow
EasternStandard ·
11/09/2026 09:07
Labour are missing that barracks instead isn’t the win they’re looking for.
They didn’t run on we’ll get rid of hotels but use barracks with 1000 plus men instead or HMOs.
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
Switchnow ·
11/09/2026 08:57
You seem unable to grasp the timeline that’s a matter of public record.
‘Headless chickens’ who have brought down both net migration and small boats, and moved most asylum seekers out of hotels (all Tory promises).
Quoting Switchnow
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
10/09/2026 09:29
Im not following your argument. Correct. The legislation was in place therefore the legislation was possible. A country had to be found to be ready to go once the legislation was ready to go. This takes time. Germany is now taking up the Rwanda policy as are other EU countries.
Yes of course Keir was entitled to cancel the policy of a previous government. You would have thought a prudent government, when cancelling a workable policy, would have had something to replace it with. But as we all know we are not dealing with a prudent government. We are dealing with a group of mad hatters who are running around like headless chickens (ive slightly mangled that..hats and no heads..)
Edited
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
Switchnow ·
10/09/2026 09:16
You’re not following. The previous government should have known their proposal would be unlawful. It was obvious. They should have proposed the legislative change before paying Rwanda. Had they done so, they may have put that plan in place.
The current government is entitled not to proceed with a policy from the previous government. This is totally normal.
Quoting Switchnow
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
10/09/2026 09:09
It didnt happen because Labour got in and cancelled it just as it was ready to go. Rishi could have delayed the election so that when all the ducks were in a line we could see if Rwanda would work. The Conservatives would still have lost but at least it would have been a solution that would be proven to have worked...ideological Labour strikes again at the expense of the national interest.
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
Switchnow ·
10/09/2026 09:01
Yes, the same parliamentary process that was followed after several years wasted touting a plan they knew would never happen.
Quoting Switchnow
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
10/09/2026 08:56
There is a parliamentary process to follow unfortunately. Thats democracy for you!
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
Switchnow ·
10/09/2026 08:54
So why not change that legislation before? It was obvious it wasn’t lawful in the form they initially proposed. Poor legal advice or legal advice they ignored?
Quoting Switchnow
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
09/09/2026 22:54
No the legislation had been passed so the Rwanda plan would have been allowed. Labour binned it in a haze of virtue signalling without a replacement plan to "smash the gangs!!!!".(hard to type that without the nasal tones of KS ringing in my ears).
Quoting EasternStandard
Switchnow ·
09/09/2026 22:52
You understand that the previous government’s plans were found illegal by British courts yes? So what other countries do is neither here nor there, since they have different legislation. Had the Tories made small tweaks they could have made their plan lawful. I don’t personally believe they ever intended to carry it out, all a dead cat.
Quoting BrandiedAromatics
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 22:49
Just countering your posts on the policy. You didn’t answer, were you aware five EU countries are setting up similar?
Quoting EasternStandard
BrandiedAromatics ·
09/09/2026 22:47
Anyone reading some of these posts would think that Sunak led the Tories to the most breathtaking GE victory we've ever seen. I mean come on, you are saying that the country got it so wrong and the Tories were right all along. They haven't recovered yet it was so bad.
Quoting BrandiedAromatics
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 22:41
Because Labour scrapped it on day one. You know that five EU countries are setting up similar? Possibly Rwanda, but if not the same type of location.
Quoting EasternStandard
BrandiedAromatics ·
09/09/2026 22:38
This is the period when illegal immigration on boats was soaring. I am genuinely surprised at the defence of this policy on here.....
Quoting BrandiedAromatics
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 22:33
Yes it did it moved people voluntarily to ROI and that’s the most cost effective way.
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
BrandiedAromatics ·
09/09/2026 22:31
And the 300 million for the Rwanda policy where nothing happened? Come on!
Quoting BrandiedAromatics
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
09/09/2026 22:28
We did have covid TBF. And the economy was improving. We were on the right track we just didnt realise. And assumed Labour couldn't do any worse (ahem).
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
BrandiedAromatics ·
09/09/2026 22:22
Sunak is known for overseeing the country's lowest growth rate since the early 19th century and a steep cost-of-living increase, the highest in 41 years!
Quoting Worrall20
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
09/09/2026 22:11
Exactly. I now weirdly look back at the Rishi years and think at least we had someone who understood economics.
Quoting NullaEffugium
Worrall20 ·
09/09/2026 22:07
Nothing Starmer did was the truth. Labour is responsible for low growth low productivity high unemployment especially NEETs. The NI policy has been a disaster for business, along with business rates, high energy costs all this disincentivises investment and creates uncertainty. No you can’t flip a switch but you don’t just turn it off. That is basic economics.
Quoting EasternStandard
NullaEffugium ·
09/09/2026 21:18
Not suprised it didn’t work even though it is the truth. People generally don’t understand economics and think it’s like flipping a switch to undo damage. So they will be turkeys voting for Christmas if they vote Tory or Reform.
Quoting NullaEffugium
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 21:14
Starmer has already tried this line for two years. It didn’t work.
Quoting EasternStandard
NullaEffugium ·
09/09/2026 21:13
It’s the truth. Over a decade of austerity & handouts to rich chums for fake contracts followed by Brexit and Truss’ unfunded mini budget. All on the Tories.
You cannot reverse that much long term damage in 10 years!
The Tory architects of Brexit even bragged that the economic damage of Brexit would last 50 years before we saw their famous uplands and prosperity.
Edited
Quoting NullaEffugium
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 21:09
Labour need to stop blaming everyone else. It didn’t work for Starmer either.
Quoting EasternStandard
NullaEffugium ·
09/09/2026 21:04
They are responsible for the economy being in its current state.
Quoting NullaEffugium
EasternStandard ·
09/09/2026 19:25
Quoting Pineneedlesincarpet
NullaEffugium ·
09/09/2026 19:19
Quoting concertinacornflake
Pineneedlesincarpet ·
09/09/2026 18:36
I think the Conservatives under Kemi are fairly credible. Assuming she keeps control of her party.
Quoting Greyrock79
concertinacornflake ·
09/09/2026 18:21
'It has to stop' - how do you propose to make it stop?
No opposition party is suggesting anything credible.
Greyrock79 ·
09/09/2026 18:10
I think many of us are tired at Labours continued attempts to buy votes via welfare.
It has to stop.