OT Andy Burnham

[Omegstrat6]

May all be pure speculation of course, but a recent interview with the New Statesman seems to indicate that Andy Burnham may yet not rule out another bid for the Labour Party leadership. Certainly, he sees the failings of Al's favourite Son of a Toolmaker and drops hints about being interested in working with others -and not necessarily just those within the Labour Party itself-to try and get the country back on track.

I dislike too much of what both Bad Enoch and Nige stand for and- whilst I still believe that he tries to do the right thing- Starmer consistently fails to listen to others and "read the room" and too often fails to properly think through policies. The analogy of a blind man surrounded by garden rakes just waiting to get hit in the face by one after another seems an apt one to me. Certainly he is no leader. From what I know of Burnham, he would be a far better choice and likely a popular one for many disillusioned centre-left voters. Quite how this would work out even if he was interested is another matter entirely but could be another option?

[bordering]

Same pig different shade of rosette,

It don't matter who leads - the policies are the issues- immigration , net zero , taxation , bureaucratic interference, restrictions on free speech are just some .

Will Burnham abandon them ? I think not- he can't- his backbenchers and unions won't let him so like I said same pig different shade of rosette

[baggieal]

I like Burnham but for me the leadership team of Labour are clowns. Illegal immigration is getting worse and Starmers one out and a thousand in is laughable. Anyone dealing in human rights ie lawyers are getting super rich. I know one driving around in an open top Porsche. Meanwhile our homeless will start to freeze on the streets,

Don?t like Trump but two things he said the other day are spot on:

Illegal immigration is killing the U.K. and they need to get a grip.

The only way to stop Russia is if NATO stop feeding their killing machines and buying Russian oil. It?s unbelievable that Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey are still spending millions in Russian oil and France and Netherlands amongst others are still buying liquefied oil. He?s right - it?s unbelievable!

Obviously there?s other things he says which is crap but not the above!

[Omegstrat6]

I like Burnham but for me the leadership team of Labour are clowns. Illegal immigration is getting worse and Starmers one out and a thousand in is laughable. Anyone dealing in human rights ie lawyers are getting super rich. I know one driving around in an open top Porsche. Meanwhile our homeless will start to freeze on the streets,

Don?t like Trump but two things he said the other day are spot on:

Illegal immigration is killing the U.K. and they need to get a grip.

The only way to stop Russia is if NATO stop feeding their killing machines and buying Russian oil. It?s unbelievable that Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey are still spending millions in Russian oil and France and Netherlands amongst others are still buying liquefied oil. He?s right - it?s unbelievable!

Obviously there?s other things he says which is crap but not the above!

I don't think anyone can argue that the levels of illegal immigration in this country are unsustainable and far too costly to the public purse, especially at a time when so many in this country are struggling financially and core sectors (health care, education, housing) are failing. It desperately needs dealing with, but I do not believe there is an easy answer to it unless you take the rather unpalatable course of sinking the small boats if they don't turn back to stop them entering in the first place.

However, despite the high profile given to illegal immigration in the media and whipped up by populism, I really do not believe that this is the root problem of all our ills. No doubting at all that it is a problem, but immigration alone is not "killing" the UK, but rather inequality and the greed of the few. It is too often used as a scapegoat and deflection by people like Trump.

The data:
UK
Year end 2024 -38,784 detected illegal immigration. 81% of these via small boats. This was 26% down on previous year.

Jan-April 2025 saw 8064 arrive, up on the 7567 for same period 2024. Much was made of the 656 who crossed on one day alone but actually far more (a staggering 1305) crossed on 3 Sept 2022. Whilst Labour have certainly not got to grips with it, it was under Conservative rule that illegal boat crossings became a big issue.I

US
Trump's first presidency inherited fairly low numbers and there is no disputing that they ramped up quickly under Biden

[Omegstrat6]

Got kicked off site! To continue:
Year end illegal immigration US:
2020-approx 100k
2021-approx 200k
2022-approx 300k
2023-approx 320k
2024-approx 200k
2025 estimated approx 120k

Trump's policies have therefore undoubtedly worked at reducing border crossings (plus he claims to have expelled 2 million existing illegal immigrants) but his claims of actually stopping illegal immigration remain his normal rhetorical exaggeration.

As for his comments on some NATO countries continuing to purchase Russian oil, these I do agree with however. The alternatives (including buying US oil of course) may be more expensive but they have signed up to the alliance and should not be allowed to try and play both sides or give half measures.

Oh, and that first line about levels of UK illegal immigration should obviously read that no one could argue that they are "sustainable" not "unsustainable"😁

[bordering]

Illegal immigration can be stopped . No food no water no shelter no services held on the beach by the army.

If in 1940 we had been invaded by young men in field grey we would have fought them on the beaches .
This is an invasion with a long term aim by the ballot box and fertility to take over the country

Now we have illegal immigration mostly young men who reject our culture and our values who do not believe in equality of the ***es and who believe leaving Islam or being gay is a death sentence.

Nazism was an existential threat to our way of life so is Islam & we are encouraging them to come with a range of benefits

Stop the benefits strop the boats.

It is an existential threat and it need to be stopped on the beaches

I know this sounds extreme but have you got an alternative?

[Albionic68]

All politicians moan about what's wrong with the world. Some even suggest change is required. Very few talk about the nuts and bolts of how they're going to deliver change or the workable day to days of those changes, their costs and ramifications.

They're too busy providing soundbites and spouting off what people want to hear to gain popularity and votes to actually find the time to sit down and think things through.

Even Hitler talked a good game in the minds of those who heard what they wanted to hear without actually understanding what it would mean in human terms.

And for every Hitler there's a Stalin or an Ayatollah. Problem we've got is the amount of little Hitlers, Stalins and Ayatollahs with big gobs and tiny brains and massive egos vying for positions of influence.

To be perfectly honest...... I think we're a bit fugged.

[baggieal]

Got kicked off site! To continue:
Year end illegal immigration US:
2020-approx 100k
2021-approx 200k
2022-approx 300k
2023-approx 320k
2024-approx 200k
2025 estimated approx 120k

Trump's policies have therefore undoubtedly worked at reducing border crossings (plus he claims to have expelled 2 million existing illegal immigrants) but his claims of actually stopping illegal immigration remain his normal rhetorical exaggeration.

As for his comments on some NATO countries continuing to purchase Russian oil, these I do agree with however. The alternatives (including buying US oil of course) may be more expensive but they have signed up to the alliance and should not be allowed to try and play both sides or give half measures.

Oh, and that first line about levels of UK illegal immigration should obviously read that no one could argue that they are "sustainable" not "unsustainable"😁

Bit like giving the Russians the tools to fight then you denounce them. Other NATO countries pulled away from buying Russian oil so there?s no excuse - they have had three years.

Illegal immigration is not easy because we don?t have the power of Trump. Trump can force ( and he has ) for those countries to accept illegals back or their tariffs rocket. Nice to be on that position of power.

Clearly France does not want them so it?s a case of stopping the boats at sea - can?t do it because of danger/human rights and a political argument with the EU.

Place the illegals in tents with no benefits except hot meals which they earn - human rights again. Many would say that?s more than our homeless get!

Exit the ECHR which mean the government can over rule judges and immigration lawyers don?t get stinking rich.

For me we should look carefully at exiting the ECHR or bringing the act up to date with immigration rules. Even a leftie ( one in our family ) agrees 1,000 illegals coming in per day will end up bankrupting the country eventually. I don?t believe either a lot of those protesting are Far Right or Farage fans. If I had school kids next to one of those hotels then I would be protesting. Many whose taxes will increase when Rachel from Accounts does her figures come November will resent yet again more hardship then look at money wasted by illegals entering, I really do get it!

Any coming in that commit crime should be immediately deported. Our prisons are at bursting point.

[Omegstrat6]

Illegal immigration can be stopped . No food no water no shelter no services held on the beach by the army.

If in 1940 we had been invaded by young men in field grey we would have fought them on the beaches .
This is an invasion with a long term aim by the ballot box and fertility to take over the country

Now we have illegal immigration mostly young men who reject our culture and our values who do not believe in equality of the ***es and who believe leaving Islam or being gay is a death sentence.

Nazism was an existential threat to our way of life so is Islam & we are encouraging them to come with a range of benefits

Stop the benefits strop the boats.

It is an existential threat and it need to be stopped on the beaches

I know this sounds extreme but have you got an alternative?

The devil is in the detail. The core issue remains what to do with them if they do land here. Ok, you can use up our already scant military resources (arguably needed elsewhere given the Russia/ Ukraine situation) to arrest them and intern them in POW style camps near our coastline but this also incurs costs. You say don't feed them or water them or provide shelter for them but whilst this will certainly save money, how palatable will this be to most UK voters? If the immigrants protest or revolt do we shoot them?

Far better to prevent them from landing in the first place, but this would not only mean the additional costs of utilizing the RN to supplement the Coast Guard, but would also entail being able to "turn" the small boats away and if they refuse to do so, do we sink them and then refuse to save them from drowning? Certainly this would discourage others making the journey and reduce the numbers, but is this a palatable solution either?

If, say, we have 40k a year and the US 200k, in comparison to the size of our respective countries, the level of illegal crossings in the US is far far less than it is here but then such illegal crossings are also far easier to deal with for the Americans than our own are. Such crossings in the US overwhelmingly involve states that border Mexico and are made primarily by land. It is a neighbouring country and therefore easier to both forcibly return them to Mexico and construct physical barriers to help keep them out in the first place. We, on the other-hand, face illegal immigration primarily from small boats crossing the Channel from people fleeing not Europe but from Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa. It is both far harder to provide physical defences to protect our border and far harder (and costlier) to return them to their country of origin. Short of shooting at them to stop them landing here in the first place I see no easy solutions and that particular option won't be palatable.

As for benefits, they won't get benefits as such unless they have been granted asylum although they do get housing support (if not in areas of their choosing and availability frequently means families are split up, living sometimes hundreds of miles away from each other) and are eligible for a preloaded ASPEN debit card at £49/week per person for food, clothing, toiletries. This is reduced to £9.95/week if the accommodation provides food. Not as brilliant as some may make out but certainly manageable given that the amounts are per person and the total cost to tax payers is undeniably far too high and small wonder that UK citizens, struggling to survive on minimum wage and crumbling social services resent it. But, again, once they are here, do we deny them shelter, food, clothing, toiletries, medical assistance and place them in what would effectively be concentration camps whilst awaiting processing?

Around 37k arrived in small boats in 2024, a 25% increase on 2023 but still less than 2022. These small boats account for between 30-40% of asylum seekers in the UK with 40% being made up of those who originally entered here legally on visas to work or study.

The majority of those coming on boats (76%) are young males over 18 with children under 18 accounting for around 14%. These proportions are said to have been stable over time. It is tempting to say that these young mena are either all radicalized or engaged in criminal activities and, undoubtedly, some may be, but the evidence shows that a key reason why the proportion of young males amongst such boat people is so high is simply down to the inherent dangers of the crossing and that in the majority of cases, female and child family members are then applied for to join them via legal application routes.

The facts are more complicated than they are often portrayed in the media but despite the levels of illegal immigration being unsustainable I really do not think that there are any easy answers.

[baggieal]

The devil is in the detail. The core issue remains what to do with them if they do land here. Ok, you can use up our already scant military resources (arguably needed elsewhere given the Russia/ Ukraine situation) to arrest them and intern them in POW style camps near our coastline but this also incurs costs. You say don't feed them or water them or provide shelter for them but whilst this will certainly save money, how palatable will this be to most UK voters? If the immigrants protest or revolt do we shoot them?

Far better to prevent them from landing in the first place, but this would not only mean the additional costs of utilizing the RN to supplement the Coast Guard, but would also entail being able to "turn" the small boats away and if they refuse to do so, do we sink them and then refuse to save them from drowning? Certainly this would discourage others making the journey and reduce the numbers, but is this a palatable solution either?

If, say, we have 40k a year and the US 200k, in comparison to the size of our respective countries, the level of illegal crossings in the US is far far less than it is here but then such illegal crossings are also far easier to deal with for the Americans than our own are. Such crossings in the US overwhelmingly involve states that border Mexico and are made primarily by land. It is a neighbouring country and therefore easier to both forcibly return them to Mexico and construct physical barriers to help keep them out in the first place. We, on the other-hand, face illegal immigration primarily from small boats crossing the Channel from people fleeing not Europe but from Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa. It is both far harder to provide physical defences to protect our border and far harder (and costlier) to return them to their country of origin. Short of shooting at them to stop them landing here in the first place I see no easy solutions and that particular option won't be palatable.

As for benefits, they won't get benefits as such unless they have been granted asylum although they do get housing support (if not in areas of their choosing and availability frequently means families are split up, living sometimes hundreds of miles away from each other) and are eligible for a preloaded ASPEN debit card at £49/week per person for food, clothing, toiletries. This is reduced to £9.95/week if the accommodation provides food. Not as brilliant as some may make out but certainly manageable given that the amounts are per person and the total cost to tax payers is undeniably far too high and small wonder that UK citizens, struggling to survive on minimum wage and crumbling social services resent it. But, again, once they are here, do we deny them shelter, food, clothing, toiletries, medical assistance and place them in what would effectively be concentration camps whilst awaiting processing?

Around 37k arrived in small boats in 2024, a 25% increase on 2023 but still less than 2022. These small boats account for between 30-40% of asylum seekers in the UK with 40% being made up of those who originally entered here legally on visas to work or study.

The majority of those coming on boats (76%) are young males over 18 with children under 18 accounting for around 14%. These proportions are said to have been stable over time. It is tempting to say that these young mena are either all radicalized or engaged in criminal activities and, undoubtedly, some may be, but the evidence shows that a key reason why the proportion of young males amongst such boat people is so high is simply down to the inherent dangers of the crossing and that in the majority of cases, female and child family members are then applied for to join them via legal application routes.

The facts are more complicated than they are often portrayed in the media but despite the levels of illegal immigration being unsustainable I really do not think that there are any easy answers.

There are no easy answers Omeg and unlike Trump we have no power over other countries ie tariff manipulation. ECHR ( rewriting legislation) or pulling out would be one way. I know and live by an immigration lawyer who is absolutely minted and here lies the problem. The problem will never be resolved until Judges/Lawyers can overturn any government ruling and the honey which attracts these people is eradicated. Why do these people cross from France to the U.K.? Why do they not want to stay in France? Would they not stay in France if they were given tents here and just hot food with no chance of black market work? Companies who offer black market work ie Uber Eats/Amazon etc should be threatened with huge fines or operating licences withdrawn!

Nobody mentions our homeless people who should be given more of a priority and yes they would love warm shelter and three meals a day, The system is all wrong.