Labour isn't working - Thread 20

[TheNuthatch]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government. 💙* *

We are bracing for the budget. 😬

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5443813-labour-isnt-working-thread-19?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

😂 agreed. Jazz hands. But without the jazz.

I don’t think anyone’s arriving with this. Look at the people getting on boats. It’s a chaotic and risky situation, they’re not smuggling stuff on top. All
their funds have probably gone to traffickers or they still owe a lot to pay the passage off. I agree btw

More like jizz hands with this lot.

Ewww 😆🤮

I've had a completely shitty day and that really cheered me up

It’s got to be last chance saloon on this. Remember the fanfare on one in one out

And smash the gangs before that

Indeed. I’ve not seen anything in Mahmoods proposals about seizing assets, therefore it’s not part of my endorsement of her proposals ... I’ve only heard about ‘taking gold’ on MN, bit like the milkshake weird stuff… Its all a bit moot either way - no chance any of it will get past the back bench massive.

It was such an act of self sabotage not to give the Rwanda thing a try. It had already started to work before it even began to work.

Oh god. My mind is already mangled. I didn’t need that imagery… 🙈🙈

Yes I agree. Although the ECHR is an issue with a third country due to individual claims. Unless they change a lot as an organisation.

It did work well to move people on voluntarily. No state payment required.

If the Denmark thing doesn’t go as expected I reckon the third country thing will be back properly at next GE, Aus style.

@EasternStandardi think that the proposal, if used selectively, could work very well. There are some asylum seekers who are part of criminal gangs - allowing cars to be seized to satisfy asylum claims is much easier than proving that someone has made criminal proceeds in that scenario. Same for delivery drivers who are working illegally - they have an asset in the form of car or e scooter that can be seized, rather than having to enforce against them and their employers.

I really think this can be avoided anyway.

Plus we’re told people have a few pounds a week and cook in showers.

Hopefully something works before we are repurposing Boris' water cannons. 😬

I understand the moral compass about a Government taking things off people (ask the Farmers about that). However, if a person has £16k in assets in the UK they are disbarred from acquiring UC which is horrible in the case of Disabled people that qualify/qualified for ESA Support group meaning future employment is unlikely at best. A point I made on a different thread, but relevant about how the state sees any 'assets' and support it may give.

Another thing it also appears that the Government have tightened up on what Asylum Seekers can Claim . It says that an Asylum Seeker can now only get £9.88 a week if food is supplied with their accommodation or £49.18 a week if food is not supplied. Hence, not surprisingly, Asylum Seekers are not eating supplied hotel food claiming it is not 'edible' This info has been given to the media by a whistleblower

Is Tuplip Siddiq position of being an MP totally untenable, following her aunts conviction and Death Sentence for Crimes Against Humanity !

Maybe the King Of the North could try Hampstead And Highgate for size !

I don’t think the reforms will work. Even if Starmer can get it past his own MPs and avoid all the inevitable legal challenges, it will probably take years to make any real difference to numbers and Labour don’t have the luxury of time.

Yes Kemi
Cross party cooperation..

Well said.

Mahmood asks MPs not to continue mentioning Tommy Robinson

Shabana Mahmood has asked MPs to not mention Tommy Robinson, stating that she finds it “very offensive”.
After an MP mentions the far-right activist, the home secretary responds: "I would just ask for people, please don't keep repeating the name of a man who doesn't even think I'm English.

"I find that very offensive and I would just ask everyone to refrain from doing so. We don't need to do that, and we do not need to go there. Don't fall for the mischief that others are making here.

Love it. She’s great.

I absolutely agree with this.

Policy is one thing - implementation, quite another thing altogether.

Too little, too late.

Oh, and btw - there is no money for this, unless Reeves plans another tax tomorrow….

Denmark are on the ECHR though and it seems to be working for them - generally - I know they have been challenged on a few cases

We can disagree without knives on here

I agree with you that Denmark have reduced their numbers with these methods. But Mahmood has cherry picked the Danish policies. The forced integration in housing and schools for example has not been adopted here. We don't know whether the same results could be achieved in a different country, or whether we would need to adopt all of their policies to get the same result.

My take is different to yours. I think this is typical of Labour. They want to virtue signal that they have taken X number of refugees and shine their halos. But once here, those same immigrants will be treated badly with assets removed, 20 year waits and continual assessments etc, just to stop votes leaking to Reform. I'd prefer a focus on stopping them arriving in the first place.

To play devil's advocate, the idea might be to make the prospect so unappealing that they don't come?

The policies will not get past the backbenches, nor will it reclaim any votes back from Reform. The Ex Labour voters are going to vote Reform for more than just a 'false' dawn on immigration . These voters have been abused for 'Decades' by the Labour Party and its hegemony in the NE/NW for example. the next Election is pay back time !

Nor will these Policy ideas or suggestions convince those departed inter- generational Labour Supporters to continue the punishment..

Haha

Tommy Robinson endorsing her obviously touched a nerve.
What did she expect when announcing policies to attract votes from the right?

I didn't like her referencing her own heritage in the commons. It felt like she was using it as cover.