Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

It's an election year in over 50 countries globally Personally I can't wait for the Palau presidential elections in November

[ramAnag]

In an attempt to keep the politics on one thread and as election year begins on both sides of the Atlantic, let’s agree that it hasn’t been a great week for those, like me, of a ‘centre left’ persuasion.
Frankly any party that can’t defeat the dishonest and incompetent rabble masquerading as the current Government/ Conservative Party doesn’t deserve to win and, although they still have my full support, we’ve perhaps seen the first signs of a wobble from Keir Starmer in the last couple of days…certainly one which will arm and excite the ‘flip flop’ brigade.
There must also be concerns about the impact Reform UK - or whatever the reincarnation of UKIP is now called - on the Election result bearing in mind the still unresolved chaos they caused via Brexit.

More worrying still though is the ‘performance’ of Joe Biden in recent times. Now looking - and acting - every one of his 81 years it looks as if US citizens have a choice between the amoral and frankly deranged Trump v Joe Biden who is displaying the first sad signs of dementia.

Let’s not forget that this is an election of probably the most powerful individual in the World and certainly the leader of the West. Without being disrespectful, at least not to Biden who I believe to be a good man, can this really be the best the USA has got to offer and as JB shuffles onto another platform where he’ll forget his lines and confuse his countries/leaders, shouldn’t we be considering an age cut off where leadership is concerned?

I know I could no longer do the job I used to do and I’m well over a decade younger than Uncle Joe. From what we’ve seen this week I wouldn’t trust him to run our local Parish Council let alone the most powerful nation on the planet and I fear the images that we’ve seen this week are only going to provide further ammunition for Trump supporters. Where has the next Kennedy, Clinton or Obama gone…there surely has to be a stronger candidate somewhere.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but which bit of this opening post of the ‘Election Year…’ thread, written in February, is confusing you, GP?

[Geoff Parkstone]

That's your take on the matter of the elections in the year. A narrow agenda of your own making. Does that first post define what everyone must discuss on the thread? I'd suggest not, it's just your own interpretation of a broader subject and a starter for 10. Nothing in the title restricts the subject matter.

[Trickytreesreds]

You seem to be confusing election and immigration again Tricky.
Maybe you should start your own immigration thread. Oh no, you did that didn’t you? Dedicated it to me for some obscure reason. Remind me…how many responses did it get, was it three or four…all but one with love from you to you!

Keep swerving. To quote yourself. "Whos' in charge?"
He wants more free movement. Done nothing to curb the immgration nightmare.
7000 illegals have flooded in. in his 50 days in charge.

What you are seeing now, is still a left over of the freedom of movement debacle and you and your mate screaming the benefits of European membership and free movement.
Its like a ponzi sxheme and our current PM refuses to acknowlege anything of the problem. "IT'S ALL DOWN TO FAR RIGHT ACTIVISTS"

[swaledale]

Source please for you claim of 7,000 asylum seekers - your incorrect to call them illegals, as by International Law, they are not illegal until their claims have been processed.

As for the rest of your post its utter bull****.

[ramAnag]

That's your take on the matter of the elections in the year. A narrow agenda of your own making. Does that first post define what everyone must discuss on the thread? I'd suggest not, it's just your own interpretation of a broader subject and a starter for 10. Nothing in the title restricts the subject matter.

Okay…have it your way, let’s have a free for all on every thread. Should be great for the forum. Honestly, I know you’re in wum mode, but your recent posts have made about as much sense as Tricky’s and his latest contribution was quite incomprehensible.

[Andy_Faber]

Source please for you claim of 7,000 asylum seekers - your incorrect to call them illegals, as by International Law, they are not illegal until their claims have been processed.

As for the rest of your post it’s utter bull****.

I’d written a post challenging TTR to provide provenance but tried to edit it when I found the source, which is the migration watch website. Not an impartial website but it’s actual figures do tie up with official sources

[Trickytreesreds]

Source please for you claim of 7,000 asylum seekers - your incorrect to call them illegals, as by International Law, they are not illegal until their claims have been processed.

As for the rest of your post its utter bull****.

It's in loads of places if you look for it.
You and the rear gunner never believe anything, unless the BBC and the Guardian say so. As a pair, they would sooner say nothing, than try to explain it. Thats a narrative you love.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s administration has seen 6,858 migrant arrivals since taking office, increasing pressure on the government to find effective solutions. In response, the government scrapped the previous Rwanda deportation scheme and proposed a new Border Security Command aimed at improving border security and reducing dangerous crossings.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/migrant-crisis-more-than-7000-people-cross-channel-since-labour-came-to-power/ar-AA1pEj2B

Considering most of them toss their ID away.
This is a pinch of salt

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511

The Centre for Migration Control put the cost to taxpayers of record levels of migrant worklessness at as much as £8.5 billion a year.

Robert Bates, research director at the Centre for Migration Control, said last night: “For all the talk of a fiscal 'black hole', the Labour Government seem to be missing the glaringly obvious fact that mass migration is causing economic pandemonium.

[ramAnag]

So…going from AF’s source - neither the BBC nor the Guardian - the boat crossing figures would appear to be as follows:
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28, 526
2022 - 45,774
2023 - 29,437
2024 - 20,644

I’m not entirely sure how reliable ‘Migration Watch’ figures are but they do raise at least two questions.
1) What do such figures say about the impact of Brexit’s ‘take back control of our borders’ policy?
2) Given that the majority of the crossings that these desperate people make take place in the theoretically calmer conditions of May to August and therefore have probably peaked for this year…how is Starmer to blame?

P.S. Robert Bates may not be quite as objective as he might like us to believe. Maybe worth checking out him and his Tufton Street connections. The grand sounding ‘Centre for Migration Control’ is just another right wing think tank.

[Andy_Faber]

So…going from AF’s source - neither the BBC nor the Guardian - the boat crossing figures would appear to be as follows:
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,843
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28, 526
2022 - 45,774
2023 - 29,437
2024 - 20,644

I’m not entirely sure how reliable ‘Migration Watch’ figures are but they do raise at least two questions.
1) What do such figures say about the impact of Brexit’s ‘take back control of our borders’ policy?
2) Given that the majority of the crossings that these desperate people make take place in the theoretically calmer conditions of May to August and therefore have probably peaked for this year…how is Starmer to blame?

P.S. Robert Bates may not be quite as objective as he might like us to believe. Maybe worth checking out him and his Tufton Street connections. The grand sounding ‘Centre for Migration Control’ is just another right wing think tank.

1) it says it had no impact. As I’ve said (and you responded with dismay) politicians in general have got to step up many gears to stop hardened criminals from giving up on this revenue stream

2) he’s not to blame yet, I guess it was TTR who said he was

[Geoff Parkstone]

What it tells me is that "illegal migration" has gone up a lot since Brexit - suggestion that even ****ing asylum seekers don't want to be in the EU ??

[swaledale]

What it tells me is that "illegal migration" has gone up a lot since Brexit - suggestion that even ****ing asylum seekers don't want to be in the EU ??

Actually it hasn't, its just that following Brexit the Tories closed all legal routes to claim asylum, refused to continue with the returns agreement that existed with the EU prior to Brexit, refused the French offer of a jointly manned Asylum reception centre at Calais, whereby an initial screening of asylum seekers could take place and those obviously ineligible could be refused entry and returned to the first safe country or deported.

Couple that with increased border checks post Brexit so the normal route via Lorry's etc was more risky and so the boast across the channel became the only option. Numbers actually entering the country have not significantly increased, just the method of entry has changed.

It is still the case that Asylum Seekers are a minority of those coming into the country, that they come into the UK due to prior connections and that other EU countries have taken far more and continue to do so than the UK does.

[ramAnag]

1) it says it had no impact. As I’ve said (and you responded with dismay) politicians in general have got to step up many gears to stop hardened criminals from giving up on this revenue stream

2) he’s not to blame yet, I guess it was TTR who said he was

1) I don’t recall responding with ‘dismay’ as you put it…but clearly the numbers have risen exponentially since Brexit…the exact opposite of the Brexiteer’s intention and the reasons for which I’d suggest are intelligently explained by Swale in the post immediately above.

2) Glad we agree…and yes, unsurprisingly, it was.

[Andy_Faber]

1) I don’t recall responding with ‘dismay’ as you put it…but clearly the numbers have risen exponentially since Brexit…the exact opposite of the Brexiteer’s intention and the reasons for which I’d suggest are intelligently explained by Swale in the post immediately above.

2) Glad we agree…and yes, unsurprisingly, it was.

1) I was paraphrasing you. My earlier comment compared to the drugs trade where authorities are fighting like Canute against the Aegir

2) We agree for now, not sure you're quite as open as me to reassessment, time will tell

Swales 'explanation' is factually inaccurate/misleading in a number of regards and demonstrates his bias, as does (unsuccessfully it appears, and the numbers surprised me as well as Swale) his attempt to call out TTR's boat arrivals figure. I won't go into detail on where he's wrong but it doesn't take much research

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale, inaccuracy and bias. 3 words I'd not normally expect to see in one sentence. Well any more so than TTR, inaccuracy and bias anyway. 2 sides of the same coin.