We are going to end up with a Conservative government AGAIN at this rate, is that ok with everyone?

[MentholLoad]

following a thread on AIBU I think about who would vote Tories again.....the main (only?) reason people are citing for voting Tories is the GC issue. Women totally abandoning social politics over a singular issue. declaring nothing else matters, if Labour can't get this right then, they won't vote for them

I can't work out if these people were Conservative voter's anyway/actually do agree that Conservative policy and practice generally, is in our best interests compared with Labour

OR they are prioritising GC issues above and at the exclusion of all else? because alot more women will have a lot more issues, if we have yet another round of Conservative Government

And they are ignoring that Labour (finally!) defined women as adult human female

AND ignoring that this whole debacle has happened under the Tories 🤷🏼‍♀️

Hey @MentholLoad - I answered your questions, when are you going to answer mine waaay back upthread? Here.

I loving the idea that women's rights are a fringe issue, human rights are more important. There was me thinking that in 2023 women's rights were human rights.

As for "women will benefit incidentally from improvements to [insert womany area here]" - trickle down benefits/economics were debunked in the 80s and I find it very telling that the only improvements women can expect are second hand so long as we stick to the sphere allocated to us.

At this point I’ll just take a conversation based on realism

It’s not even there

Looks like "a man is a man and a womam is a woman" hasn't had the impact the Conservatives hoped for. Sunak now lower in the polls than he was pre conference

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1712748242801242319?s=20

Myself and many other posters are fully aware of the situation, both here in the UK and globally e.g the latest catastrophes in the ME will lead to even more migration toward Europe, which is struggling to integrate, house etc and is facing ever increasing public resentment towards migrants.

Is that enough realism?

Where we differ is disagreeing that 1000 sent to Rwanda and 4/500 on a single barge will make any difference, either to x channel migration or the costs of housing migrants.

In fact if you re escaping death, captivity, rape and sex trafficking or your area has no clean water, no schooling or employment one might argue that Rwanda isn't so bad after all.

If the SC keeps with the Court of Appeal, what's the plan then?

Excellent news, he is a terrible PM, i did have higher hopes for him when he was standing against Truss, he was clearly the best option at the time but since becoming PM, he seems to rely completely on the right wing to stay in office and that guides all his policies/ideas.

Realism is lacking in we can’t let anyone die or we fix world issues in pp

What was your proposed solution?

Solutions?

Well, i think most migration is caused by poverty and war.

We can't do much about war but we can do something about poverty, so we have an extra 100m people in poverty compared to 2019, yet we have space tourism & billionaires killing themselves to go diving.
Of those 100m many will head to US and Europe.

We need to tow back boats to N. Africa, paying Tunisia and Libya to house them, preferably before they leave, we then need to have returns agreements (from Libya/Tunisia) with more countries, again costing money.
The UK/France made matters far worse by getting rid of Ghadaffi.

The UK needs to work with EU, migrants crossing the Med will soon be our problem too, just doling out quotas to various countries will not work.

We may also need to intervene to destroy trafficking gangs in N. Africa too, hopefully working with the countries involved i.e treat them as "terrorists"

So whats Plan B when Rwanda fails?

We need to tow back boats to N. Africa, paying Tunisia and Libya to house them, preferably before they leave, we then need to have returns agreements (from Libya/Tunisia) with more countries, again costing money.

So another location to process claims for money? Sounds familiar.

Unless you’re dropping international law and you won’t process claims anymore?

I haven’t heard what will happen if SC case fails, you’ll find out at same time I do.

So another location to process claims for money? Sounds familiar

Totally different as well you know! they would not be deported, towed back as Aus has done, thought you'd be in support?

Its already in the offing, EU is giving money to Tunisia, to keep migrants there, some issues atm but it will happen, they need the money!!!

Similar has been done for Turkey for years, eventually making that route less desirable.

I wasn't asking for the UK Govt's plan B, i was after yours! surely you ve got your own ideas?

Towed back is better?

Ok if that’s what people want, the full Aus version. Tow people back. Although it’s not back, it’s somewhere else.

You still need to process people by international law and you can’t just drop them off at the same location - so you need alternative location processing which is basically what Rwanda is.

Not sure why you’re so keen on my ideas but ok. As I said earlier post War systems will likely strain and we may see a breaking away from the set up. I guess we’ll find out how much citizens demand change.

To add what you would like is pretty much what I mean by straining post war set up

If enough people feel like you that towing people back is best, then international law would have to be dropped first

Your post is a good example of people demanding that change

I don't know how you got "noone is going to die" from my post.
For clarity, I don't think we should pursue isolationist policies that increases the death rate of people seeking asylum. Its callous and inhumane

And I think its morally wrong to leave other humans to starve/be murdered just because they were born in a different part of the globe.

This part- I’d say it’s clear you want everyone who is born in different part of globe and at risk to not be left.

You might need to flush out numbers to see what you mean though. As without practicality it’s a bit vague and unrealistic.

@howpo would you also want tow backs in the Channel?

It helps to consider context to understand what people mean:
Putting up stronger borders and saying "I'm alright jack" is no solution to what's happening.

I would rather a progressive immigration system that supports as many less advantaged people as possible, than a draconian "deterrent based" system because "we are full".

We are really fortunate to live in a country that's relatively safe and insulated from climate change, we should not be turning our backs on the rest of humanity because we were lucky.

Can't do that, you'd be risking a lot with France! would be a stupid idea, esp as the boats are little more than inflatables, that belong in a lake - so we need cooperation with EU, UK contributing to funds being sent to N. Africa, get us some influence.

Tow back to Tunisia would work with Tunisian co operation, hence the money side of things.

Your (Tory policy) ideas won't work because it doesn't address the flow of migrants into Europe and on to the UK, migrants will risk Rwanda, just as they still come to the UK knowing they will be put up in Hotels, cannot work, get little money & no access to family - not much of a life.

Rwanda is also inhumane, it gives no chance of asylum to the UK regardless of the validity of the claim.

So you'd also need a good asylum processing system in Tunisia and returns agreements with other countries for those that fail, again going to cost.

Again, we need to address why people leave their home countries and tackle gangs that enable it.

You will still need to consider numbers at some point.

If there’s an upper limit, what that is and what happens to people outside it - is that immoral?

And how do deal with it if they turn up in a boat outside your ok number

If you don’t have a limit, then back to what do you envisage for the amount of people you think would like to be here

Tow back to Tunisia would work with Tunisian co operation, hence the money side of things.

Why are the boats more robust? There are more drownings already. They are not any more secure. Google boats crossing the Med to see how unsafe they are.

Your tow back to Tunisia also gives no chance of asylum either. Why is that not inhumane?

People fleeing Tunisia - stay there, no right to asylum is ok because?

Your proposal is pretty much the same, except with tow backs which you don’t want to touch here but do there

Not to mention it won’t resolve the issue as people don’t all come from Tunisia

So the idea you can absolve to EU and propose they pick up your inhumane (as you have called it) policies there but not here won’t work

You are just picking holes now, we clearly cannot tow back to France without their co operation, which we will not get.

Which is why we have to limit numbers coming into Europe.

Yes some boats are not great in the Med but as you keep telling us "Deterrents" so once a few boats are towed back to Tunis waters, picked up by willing Tunis coast guards, then numbers reduce?

Well aware not all come from Tunisia, Libya is a big departure point too, but the Tories got rid of any stability we had there!

Aside, you re not addressing the issues with just 1000 places in Rwanda?

I answered it already ages ago

‘Holes’ is a bit generous. So on this inhumane

You have a Tunisian person fleeing persecution, they try to leave by boat and get towed back

They face persecution or go to a facility for processing for asylum, not sure which you prefer

So how is your approach different?

Well, at least a processing centre in Tunisia etc would provide a route into UK/EU, the Rwandan plan is that regardless of the validity of your case, you will stay in Rwanda, i think thats not acceptable, even Mrs May said the same and she is hardly some left wing liberal.

The EU/UK clearly cannot take on unlimited numbers of economic migrants though.

Why would it provide a route into EU?

Do you mean a Tunisian person is fleeing, gets towed back, processed and relocated on asylum acceptance and relocated to EU?

Have the EU said this is their preference? Atm France says no to migrants from Tunisia via Lampedusa and Germany too, are you expecting all people fleeing via Med to be relocated?

France have also suggested countries Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal as alternative.

The way i would like 3rd country relocation/processing to work is that valid asylum claims can still mean that person can still move to the EU/UK.

So a few months a go, a Kurdish woman drowned in the Ch, her husband was in the UK, under Rwanda, she would have been deported and left there, regardless of why she was coming to the UK, same applies to a parent coming to the UK to be with a child, a victim of sex trafficking.

No of course not, if all people crossing the med relocated to Europe, then more will keep coming, thats obvious.

France and other countries can suggest what they like, unless that country has the means to process all or vast majority of arrivals, then people will cross, taking a chance they wont be deported, thats also obvious.

To check this part

No of course not, if all people crossing the med relocated to Europe, then more will keep coming, thats obvious.

You mean a person fleeing persecution from Tunisia would be towed back and stay there as the numbers would be too great.

Does that feel inhumane using your word earlier