US Election results

[IwantToRetire]

Kamala Harris 27
45.2% popular vote
12,768,875 votes

Donald Trump 99
53.8% popular vote
15,275,564 votes

270 to win

U.S. election results 2024 | CBC News

6/11/2024 @ 01:25 GMT

Labour will not survive more than eight years.

I am currently on the fence about the next election. It's too close to call. The trends don't necessarily favour Labour. They are the only significant socialist leaning government in western Europe now. And their margins are exceptionally tight. The British public are traditionally slightly left of centre (despite our newspapers) but there are more left wing parties and the incumbent effect at a point of economic hardship won't wash well.

I don't think Labour will get in again after this term.

There is going to be a push to the right because no one will take immigration issues seriously and they're only going to get worse. That's without even mentioning the gender madness/identity politics that they're obsessed with.

Canada is the next one that's going to go to the right.

If Labour and Tories aren't careful I can see a larger rise of Reform on the horizon.
They need to start listening urgently.

Canada is the acid test. It will be interesting.

The problem with "taking immigration issues seriously" is that it is legitimately a hard problem to solve (not impossible, but very hard). There are wars and severe economic hardships in lots of areas with geographic proximity to Europe and you will always get people trying to travel from where it is dangerous or life is miserable to where it is safe, life is better. That's just human nature. Once in Europe then, yes, they could stay there but realistically it isn't in e.g. Italy's interests to just absorb the vast wave of people and not encourage them to move on. Inevitably some of those people are going to end up on the coast of France trying to reach the UK. And we have a very large coastline that's hard to monitor, plus the only method of stopping them would be literally shoot the boats and drown people and most would think that that was unnaceptable (and would trigger its own backlash which would maybe make it harder to talk about immigration in the future).
There are things governments can do, and I hope the Labour party does them, but most of those measures are kind of boring and it takes a while to see the effects. The easy way to "take immigration issues seriously" is to reflect public anger back on the public and stoke it up further by leaning into slogans or quite unpleasant rhetoric (Sunak said to "stop the boats" but he didn't, the Rwanda plan was a stupid idea that would never have fixed the problem but seemed sufficiently "tough").
I think politicians should listen more to the public and take people's needs seriously. That's hard though, and its easier instead to vibrate with the emotional state of the public. Which isn't helpful but the right are actually better at at the moment.

@ItsFunToBeAVampire I meant to say I agree about the gender stuff! Its madness that so many on the left has decided that this is going to be the mad hill they want to die on.

Australia take immigration issues very seriously and have done for over a decade.

No one will vote that out now, they know what it is to deal with border security in a way that people just won't change.

Australia 'taking immigration issues seriously' is a whole different reality to Europe.

Why?

Because actual distance and geography.

Not really. Italy have recently decreased the numbers across the Med dramatically using a couple of policies, have you seen what they are?

The EU, US and Aus will have different approaches but all of them will be hardline.

I'm talking about on the average forum......the dominating consensus has to be an unquestioned 'progressive' one, complete with all of the predicatable articles of faith...and god forbid anyone should question any of it, or even show an understanding of why some people vote for right wing candidates or policies.

It is very toxic and so much animosity, and downright hatred, on show. And this is from the people who claim to be the good guys. I contribute to another forum, and if anyone dares question any of the Left/Progressive edicts then you are name called, shamed, bullied, censured.......It is really ugly, and all rooted in emotion.

People are permanently angry and incapable of a reasoned discussion. It always has to be made personal. And so much moral righteousness.

Australia's geography is very very different to the UK though. But also, they do still take in asylum seekers and immigrants. Just on their own terms. In the UK taking immigration seriously might involve:

1. concentrating resources to break up the people smuggling gangs, hunting down the people profiting (not just the foot soldiers) and punishing them severely. The organised crime involved is off the scale now and some of the people benefitting are just evil. That would involve money spent and cooperation with other EU countries
2. Actually sorting out the chaos in the home office and processing applications for asylum in a timely manner. At the moment the asylum system is deliberately tortuous and byzantine. This means that it takes longer to grant people asylum which sounds good but those people are still there in the UK (just unable to work etc) and so are all the people with no rights to asylum (because their applications haven't been rejected either). At the moment people are actively incentivised to break the rules and abscond or work illegally.
3. Cooperating with the EU re returning people who cross the channel illegally. That would require something in return though such as taking in a certain number of asylum seekers from the EU.
4. Opening up a legal channel for some asylum seekers - currently there isn't one which means the only way people can claim it is to come illegally. At least if we were taking people in on our own terms it wouldn't just be the people most physically capable or most willing to take risks that was the main criteria. And it would be much easier to argue that people crossing the channel had come illegally if there was any alternative method.

The first two options are boring. And the second two options are controversial. But politicians have been talking about "Australia" for years to try to sound tough but they haven't actually done anything.

Brexit was immediately overtaken by Covid. It was inevitable that corruption would occur in Covid when rules in place to prevent it were set aside to deal with the immediate crisis

Fuck no. Brexit hasn't been overtaken by anything. Corruption is not inevitable. Not all politicians are the same.

I agree @biscuitandcake

The UK will have to bite a few bullets in order to tackle the immigration issue.

Sadly Labour are burying their head in the sand. It's no better than the fire-stoking Trump and Farage are doing

I know the conversation has moved on, and don't know if this has already been mentioned, but am reading on Twitter about the effectiveness of this ad campaign which shows Kamala promising state funded sex change surgery for all transgender prisoners...
www.youtube.com/embed/VVU7pYq3WHw

Link didn't work!

https://youtube.com/shorts/VVU7pYq3WHw?si=3J6PhBJ1T9pXQIN4

But 'the immigration issue' conflates the Channel boat-people with folk being resentful about Poles 'taking their jobs'. Which hardly helps to have an honest conversation about either.

concentrating resources to break up the people smuggling gangs, hunting down the people profiting (not just the foot soldiers) and punishing them severely.

This isn't boring it's not feasible.

However, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Saunders, who was chief immigration officer for ports, said "unfortunately what the prime minister is trying to do is not feasible".

The UK would only be able to prosecute and jail people smugglers "in the UK and the majority of people smugglers are actually based in the Middle East and Turkey", Mr Saunders said.

When you say 'hunting down people profiting' what is your jurisdiction?

The UK is the only comparable country only using 'smash the gangs'.

We really are the outlier now the US, EU and Aus are going hardline. Why would you want to be that outlier?

Why would anyone want to be that? No other country will use only that method. They would find the results overwhelming.

This.

The conflation is deliberate.

No conflation here.

I am fine with separating out migration and usually do.

At this point it seems unnecessary as I assume people know the detail of what is being discussed

@EasternStandard what does "hardline" for the EU mean?

Just to add, if being "hardline" from the EU meant having completely solid borders, and not letting anyone illegal through then actually being the outlier would be fine because we wouldn't be getting anyone coming across the channel anyway. If that same strategy didn't work, then being the outlier would still be a good idea because being the only one not doing a failing strategy is a good thing.
That sounds flippant. as I said the UK and EU need to cooperate really. But "other countries are being hardline, we need to as well" doesn't make sense if you don't know what hardline means (running around shouting aaargh immigrants won't help but looks good).

Two main things - illegal pull backs and new laws so more people are not saved in the Med

Meloni has got numbers down by 60%

I'd say the our main comparators EU, Aus and US are now more aligned on hardline policy now Trump is in and the EU is shifting

We will still get people crossing as people flow to the easiest country, this information spreads pretty quickly and people profit from that

It's 60% down not 100% and via the Med is not the only route to the UK

And I have just given you two examples of their policy so no running around shouting is necessary

Online isn't real life though. We are all online now. But for all you know I could be a teenager causing trouble, a Russian troll, someone trying to push you further to the right by screaming that you are "fascist scum who deserves to die", or just a mentally ill person. I like having discussions online (clearly) but you can't make direct judgements about what most people think about you/your beliefs from what you see on forums.

I know people that work (or used to work) in the fishing industry. Most of them are very much NOT pro immigration at all. But if you made laws saying that people weren't allowed to come to the rescue of someone drowning (which you would need to do) that's a terrible thing to order people. Unless you have been out at sea on a small boat when the wind is up I think its hard to understand just how terrible.

The law has been criticised but you asked what hardline policy they are using, so I've provided the info, and the illegal pull backs.

I said earlier Australia had tough policy but Italy / the EU has been able to do similar level with different geography and location

I doubt we'd do the same here, my post was because you asked for examples.

But again, we will be the outlier with Starmer's approach and as others get really tough we'll see that reflected in higher numbers and deaths