To ask what the country was like under a Labour government?

[user6776]

I'm too young to remember a proper Labour government. I was 12 when the Tories got voted in back in 2010 so that's all I've ever really known.

How much better was it than it is now? Why did Labour lose the election back then anyway?

Interested to hear people's opinions.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was a more coherent strategy, you keep misrepresenting what I've actually said as something I didn't.
I also didn't accuse "Ireland of lying". It really shows a lack of rigour in considering things if you insist on altering and misrepresenting everything that someone else says.
Rwanda is an expensive waste and won't work beyond a small populist appeal to a particular band of voters. It's not an effective policy in any way except as a dog whistle.

Obviously a typo. And the amounts are irrelevant to HMRC (although obviously chasing £4m rather than £1500 is a better use of resources). Now you’ve quoted me I can’t correct it tho. Thanks for pointing it out.

I am wondering why though if the pp read the link their immediate reaction to Martin quotes, Ireland's foreign secretary, was I don’t believe them

@Fieldofbrokenpromises ?

If you are asking me you are just showing your extreme ignorance.

You can't point to me saying I don't believe them BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Once again, you are just lying about what I have actually posted, and not for the first time.

It wasn't perfect by any means, but I do think things were generally much better under the last Labour government in many different ways.

The Iraq war was utterly wrong and shouldn't ever have happened, but they still won another election even after that.

They lost in 2010 a) because they had been in power for too long and people were ready for a change, and b) because they were blamed for the global economic crash in 2008, which I don't think was fair. Yes, in hindsight there should have been greater awareness of the risks and much better regulation of the financial sector, but I don't recall the opposition parties having campaigned for that at the time.

Immigration was also an issue in the 2010 election, and the Labour Party was seen as being "soft" on this area. Ironic, given that net migration is way higher now than it ever was back then!!

So do you think they are correct when they say the threat of deportation is impacting migration from UK to NI and Ireland?

In your view it is having an impact?

The thing is immigration is not the biggest concern for many voters, the state of public services is, I would say that is glaringly obvious and no Tory HQ research has to be done on this on MN.

Yeah, I agree. It's common sense, really. I think those on the right like to make it out to be a much bigger issue than it actually is because they believe that it will help their cause. And because they probably can persuade some voters to believe that the poor state of public services is the result of excessive immigration, rather than bad government and chronic underinvestment The fact that lots of our public services would collapse without immigrants seems to pass some people by...

It was certainly cited frequently as a weakness for Labour in 2010, and it was a key feature of the stupid Brexit campaign.

Migration is a rising issue for the EU and US

Even if Labour manage to convince people they can smash gangs or whatever I doubt we’ll buck that here

If anyone looks at projections, sees where we are now with political strain, then think how that will increase as numbers go up it’s easy to see how it will intensify

Yes, it will intensify, particularly as the impact of climate change is felt more pervasively and as conflicts continue to rage in various parts of the world.

Neither party has a viable solution for this issue at present. Rwanda won't work. The Labour Party won't be able to stop the traffickers. It might be more effective if the countries that are concerned about immigration started to look more at the factors which are causing mass migration, rather than simply trying to stem the tide.

Thing is...without immigration, the UK population (and primarily the workforce) would be shrinking. The implications of that are, of course, too much detail for most voters.

Immigrants are the easiest of easy targets, though, which is why the Tories push the point so hard - in the simplest of terms, they get to stoke blame against people who can't vote and thus don't matter to their electoral chances. The consequences are somebody else's problem.

Billions are being spent already but realistically it won’t stop people choosing to leave, especially as climate pressure increases

When you say not working do you think people moving on to NI / Ireland is due to the deportation as per link in pp - would you say that’s showing an impact?

I'm not qualified to judge and neither are you. Did you notice that there isn't even a consensus among politicians in Ireland on this? So I'd be foolish to take one politician's opinion over another on this. There has been a recent rise in asylum claims there and they are apparently mostly from NI and the origin of the vast majority of the claimants is apparently Nigeria. It isn't clear that these are people who came to the UK on boats - they are hardly likely to be open about the means of their arrival.

It may suit a politician to characterise a situation in a way that plays with a sector of the electorate or in their interaction with a foreign government.

Rwanda may be the source of a sudden influx of Nigerians to Ireland - but it also may not.

Yes, climate change being one of them,
on a personal level people can try harder when it comes to climate change, really look at their own lifestyle, look at the the no Mowing in May suggestion, it is not hard to do and overall has a major benefit if enough do it.

There has to be some accountability of the Western world and individual reflection not just, ‘oh well, it doesn’t impact me’. Immigration as a result of climate change is presumably going to increase but we don’t seemingly care.

I’m not against a more realistic discussion on what will happen.

If there will be as expected a very high number of people migrating, what next?

Also the grip trafficking networks have and the extent of the billions they make can’t be underestimated. You cannot end that with the laws as they are, only make your country less attractive to their marketing, if lower numbers are the aim.

Those two things seem pretty full on for humanity actually, I’m not really seeing anything near the weight it should be given

Even if we miss some of it our dc will feel it

I'm not convinced that the Rwanda plan will divert vast numbers to Ireland, no. We haven't seen any solid evidence yet to back this up, either from the Irish government or from the Home Office.

If the risk of drowning on the channel crossing isn't enough to put people off, I'm not sure why the vanishingly small possibility of being sent to Rwanda is likely to be an effective deterrent either. The numbers that Rwanda is geared up to take is tiny, despite the eye watering costs. And experience teaches us that people typically tend to assume that the worst case scenario won't happen to them. The traffickers will no doubt do everything to perpetuate this way of thinking.

While I'm strongly opposed to the scheme on principle, there is a part of me that wants it to be up and running if only to prove how pointless the whole thing is.

The thing is immigration is not the biggest concern for many voters, the state of public services is

Concerns around immigration and poor services are linked I thought.

Radio 4 started finding this out in interview - similar increasingly opposition to new builds is often along similar lines. People worry poor access to services will worsen in both cases. They were asking about people coming over as HCP - people were in favour but more generally questions around immigration expressed worry mainly around housing, services - school places etc.

Improving services take time and money - and Tory's are reason they are so bad now so hardly going to focus on that aspect are they. Rwanda plan seems like a lot of noise and smoke rather than actual solution - I assume because actual solutions are hard slow and need international co-operation and aren't big splashy noise items but slow hard work.

For some voters they may be linked but certainly not for all. I know people who voted Conservative, they have money but they are voting Labour, run down public services is the main reason.

Anecdotally it depends on the demographic you are in whether it is a problem, in all honesty, I’m unsure what the data is on this issue.

It’s not if it will divert, it’s more the claim from Ireland that it is moving people already. Ie through UK to NI to Ireland

The best way to find out would be ask people why they are moving from U.K. through NI border

Even better see what traffickers are selling to migrants when they get a so you could be deported flyer

i can see why people would leave if someone was selling a way to avoid that

Think about the selling tactics of traffickers - and what they exploit

Actually this covers some interviews

https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-offloads-refugee-crisis-ireland-dublin-aghast-migration-rwanda-plan/

I do actually understand why Ireland is reacting, it’s difficult to be impacted if the flow is changing as they say

“I don’t want to go back to Nigeria, and I don’t want to go to Rwanda either,” said Christian,

Like an estimated 80 percent of this year’s approximately 7,000 arrivals in Ireland, Christian entered the Republic of Ireland by road from the North, the only corner of the U.K. that shares a land border with an EU member. He says he paid a taxi driver £2,400 to drive him and two other Nigerians the 102 miles from Northern Ireland’s capital of Belfast across the border to Dublin — only to learn that others in the asylum queue had made the same trip by public bus for £17.

Actually it might just be as simple as that top sentence. Traffickers not as needed for the sell.

I know people are committed to Labour, I’m not interested in that. Vote as you want. But I do think psychologically the reaction above is understandable.

The Police are investigating a claim of electoral fraud, a 12month time limited offence.
The CGT issue is NOT being investigated by the Police or by the HMRC, now why would that be?

Starmers statement on ARs tax affairs are irrelevant to the GMP investigation.

AR would have had loads of neighbours, we don't know what they said in sworn statements, talking to the press after giving evidence in a criminal investigation that is still on going wouldn't be a great idea, all we have is unsubstantiated allegations.

I don't profess to know what AR did or didn't do, yet you ve made up your mind.

Its right she steps down if she is convicted of electoral fraud, though as it was many years ago, not sure how that can happen, given the current time limits

"You barely (I cannot recall a single time) heard of parents/step parents mistreating their children/step children so badly they died from the neglect"

Surely if someone was going to mistreat their children they would do that whoever was in power?

You seemed to be claiming that NHS waiting lists consist only of people waiting 'for surgery' - that doesn't appear to be the case at all;

About four in five are waiting for treatment that does not require an admission to hospital, such as diagnostic tests and outpatient appointments...