Voting to "Get the Tories Out" part 2

[AdamRyan]

Follow on to this thread to continue discussion

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4978642-voting-to-get-the-tories-out?page=40&reply=132044464

Career politician??

He was a QC for many years, before a stint in the civil service.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer

@lifeturnsonadime you probably didn't see my question earlier today, because I know you were working. But would you mind giving me some closure (! trying to understand) on what you want Labour to say that they haven't already said.
As much as I don't want this thread to be about the gender debate, this has opened up a bit of can of worms for me because so far I've avoided it (on MN)
T

That makes no sense. Why would anyone pay people traffickers if there were no passports and no border control?

Will she though? If she means what she says and the Tories agree with her, why wasn’t it in the King’s Speech, to be addressed before an election?

There’s a difference between satisfied and reassured. What Starmer says protects the concept of biological single spaces and promises to retain them. Is there more he could do? Probably, I don’t really know. Is that more than you claim he’s going to do? Yes.

But they have done exactly what you say they want them to do - guaranteed spaces for biological women and any clarification in law required to do that. You have just decided you don’t believe them, and back it up with the Guardian saying it’s not enough. I skim read it a bit, but isn’t what they said actually that neither side would be happy? Which is essentially what always happens with a political compromise, and that’s what we need.

Not satisfying both sides isn’t the same as not going far enough.
If, for eg, you have one child who wants to go to a particular park for the afternoon and another who doesn’t want to go outside at all, going to the park for a short period won’t satisfy either child. Both will want it to ‘go further’. It’s still fair though, given both children have to be supervised together.
And yes, I know this issue is very serious, I’m not trivialising it, I’m giving a simple example which won’t stir up emotion.

Here we go. The usual lazy Tory rhetoric that Labour want uncontrolled immigration .

Hi I’m out at the moment but I’ll answer this later tonight

I'm still chortling at the characterisation of Sunaks government as nu-Labour (centre left). Pretty scary thought as to where that poster thinks "the right" is.

The civil service is left wing? Do you know how they recruit?
In fact, I think they are pretty good at being neutral actually. People who complain they are left wing tend to be people who think following things like immigration law is left wing.

@AllTheScoresOnAllTheDoors That's an understatement. I'm not sure lazy even covers it. I'm always open to discuss opposing opinions with those who engage in good faith; but I don't even know what the word is for some of the stuff I read on MN on such topics.

Bit of light relief from all the sex based rights talk I suppose

The word is 'lie'

@cardibach I always thought they were quite right wing! Haha. We all make these assumptions. Their internal policies are quite polished actually so they probably are quite neutral.

Yes. That is simultaneously troubling and hilarious.

Exactly! Certainly the background of those anywhere near government policy will be heavily independent school/Russell Group (if not public/Oxbridge). I think in the whole they do a pretty balanced job, Simon Case aside.

And the only reason they're bashing Labour is because they are Tory supporters. See also their oft repeated lie "at least the Tories know what a woman is".

The Tory party is an anti woman party. A vote for them is a vote against women and the interests of the country!

GTTO.

The Tory government went to war with the Civil Service for Boris's Brexit. Replacing seasoned, experienced CSs with Tory stooges.

Both the Conservatives and Labour Party have an open border policy. Anyone can rock up on our beaches and be granted long term access to the UK benefit system. Shame this largesse only applies to young, healthy, wealthy males with the means to pay people traffickers.

personally I’d rather this largesse was extended to vulnerable Afghan women for example but they lack the means and strength to get here. I’m just an old feminist so such thoughts won’t go down well on this thread.

Someone else asked why do we have an open border policy: I guess to increase the workforce and keep wages low, boost GDP, increase Serco’s share price, who knows their reasoning, I’m only a middle aged Greek dog rescuer.
At any rate we can expect more of the same under Starmer, business as usual.

100% ^this....

That thread was appalling, glad MN listened to those reporting it and deleted.

What would you do with men from Afghan, Syria, Libya, Sudan arriving here?

Send them back? how? not too many BA flights to Kabul and whilst we could send back to Syria/Sudan, what do you think would happen to them?

We voted to leave the EU, so migration into the UK is no longer their concern, we now have v little influence but at least Labour is building bridges with Europe, wants to rejoin Europol and have a close, mutually beneficial relationship, Northern France doesn't want to be a holding station/magnet for migrants seeking to enter the UK.

The migrants arriving here by dinghy are not allowed to work.

Labour had net "legal" migration at 240k in 2010, the Tories have trebled it, so your reasoning doesn't apply to Labour, who certainly don't care about Serco or Capita share pricing.

I asked for evidence for your open borders claim not scaremongering nonsense about benefits

There’s a new one. I’ve reported it.