Hold your nose and vote Labour?

[belboid]

Indeed he did: Labour would use barges to temporarily house asylum seekers, says Stephen Kinnock

I hate to agree with Wells, or Kinnock. But what he says is just fucking obvious, unless you are completely delusional. Assuming there are some asylum seekers on those barges on the day after the election, then of course Labour are still going to have to use them. What else could they do?

 

[danny la rouge]

I hate to agree with Wells, or Kinnock. But what he says is just fucking obvious, unless you are completely delusional. Assuming there are some asylum seekers on those barges on the day after the election, then of course Labour are still going to have to use them. What else could they do?

Not use them.

 

[pbsmooth]

anyone but the Tories for me. so that means Labour. the end.

 

[NoXion]

I hate to agree with Wells, or Kinnock. But what he says is just fucking obvious, unless you are completely delusional. Assuming there are some asylum seekers on those barges on the day after the election, then of course Labour are still going to have to use them. What else could they do?

There's no explicit statement from Kinnock that Labour will stop using barges:

When pressed if that meant Labour would continue to use the barges to house asylum seekers, Kinnock said: “The reality is, on day one we will have to deal with the we have and the shambolic mess they have left us. We’ll be left with no choice but to deal with the mess we inherit.”

The crap about "the mess we inherit" is an attempt to appeal for votes without actually making a stand for decent policy that they can be held to. It's disgusting politicking, and given Shammer's actions towards the left of Labour, I don't trust that they're just being cowards about right-wing media backlash.

 

[Knotted]

Labour says they would keep asylum seeker barges if they gained power

Stephen Kinnock said the idea made him 'deeply unhappy' as it was the last thing they wanted to do.

metro.co.uk

Starmer: Migrants are not answer to NHS crisis

The Labour leader wants to fix the health service staffing crisis by hiring more people from the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Starmer's right on the second point though. He'll probably renege on it in power but training up more doctors and nurses is a good thing and pilfering eg. Nigerian doctors should be opposed.

 

[belboid]

Not use them.

what? So day one, you're gonna dump them in the sea? Or just bus them about some places until you can think of somewhere? Bloody daft comment.

 

[danny la rouge]

what? So day one, you're gonna dump them in the sea? Or just bus them about some places until you can think of somewhere? Bloody daft comment.

Yes, that’s my suggestion. Talk about daft comments.

 

[belboid]

There's no explicit statement from Kinnock that Labour will stop using barges:



The crap about "the mess we inherit" is an attempt to appeal for votes without actually making a stand for decent policy that they can be held to. It's disgusting politicking, and given Shammer's actions towards the left of Labour, I don't trust that they're just being cowards about right-wing media backlash.

Your second point is sound, it is horrible phraseology designed to appeal to 'both sides'. But that is quite different to saying Labour support them or even would agree to 'put them on' barges.

 

[NoXion]

what? So day one, you're gonna dump them in the sea? Or just bus them about some places until you can think of somewhere? Bloody daft comment.

Kinnock could have said something along the lines of "Labour will endeavour to stop using the barges as soon as is practical. We will work to find alternative means of housing asylum applicants on British soil". But he didn't. Because Starmer's Labour will continue using the barges.

 

[belboid]

Yes, that’s my suggestion. Talk about daft comments.

Come on then, what is your Day 1 solution? Give me something 'sensible'

 

[danny la rouge]

Kinnock could have said something along the lines of "Labour will endeavour to stop using the barges as soon as is practical. We will work to find alternative means of housing asylum applicants on British soil". But he didn't. Because Starmer's Labour will continue using the barges.

Precisely.

Kinnock’s line is basically Lord Farquaad from Shrek: “it’s a price I’m willing to pay”.

 

[danny la rouge]

Come on then, what is your Day 1 solution? Give me something 'sensible'

The way to engage me is not to make up ridiculous positions for me and then keep prodding my chest.

What Kinnock could have said is something like NoXion suggested.

 

[Knotted]

Thangam Debonaire said something similar to Kinnock about the Rwanda scheme. To be honest I buy the argument that governments have to have priorities and undoing Tory policies might not be the first priority. I don't see either Kinnock or Debonaire as doing any authoritarian right wing posturing on this just being honest about the mechanics of government.

Still. Never vote Labour. Organise an alternative.

 

[belboid]

Kinnock could have said something along the lines of "Labour will endeavour to stop using the barges as soon as is practical. We will work to find alternative means of housing asylum applicants on British soil". But he didn't. Because Starmer's Labour will continue using the barges.

Yeah, that would have been better, but not saying that doesn't mean he supports the opposite. He did say it would take about six months before they would be really in a position to do anything.

Meanwhile, whoever we vote for (or don't) we can organise to demand a better system.

 

[hash tag]

yes, otherwise he'd have said 'i was' or 'i will be' or some other tense, several of which i am sure maomao will mention if he sees this

I really thought he had gone

 

[hash tag]

Thangam Debonaire

One of the many labour MPs who I see as a Tory in all but name.

 

[NoXion]

Yeah, that would have been better, but not saying that doesn't mean he supports the opposite. He did say it would take about six months before they would be really in a position to do anything.

Meanwhile, whoever we vote for (or don't) we can organise to demand a better system.

Doesn't the lack of any real statement of intent concern you? A party can state their intentions well before they have practically worked out plans. But not Starmer's Labour, because it is held hostage by fortune rather than having any principles. I think danny's post is enough indication that wherever the political winds blow, Labour in its current form will do its damnedest to tack rightward.

 

[Karl Masks]

He did.

It isn’t.

Voting evil won’t stop evil.

No he didn't. Watch it again, because at this point you are being deliberately dishonest or deliberately ignorant. Here is the interview


It's fairly clear what he's saying. Your alternative to the thousands of migrants that are here and, if Braverman gets her way, being housed in barges and hotels and god only knows where, including kids being snatched.

 

[Knotted]

If we're getting into interpretations about what a shadow minister really meant and what that might mean in power then we're making the case against Labour look much weaker than it really is. Cut to the basics - we're in a cost of living crisis with a wave of industrial action and Labour have made it clear they oppose the strikes. It's a basic "which side are you on?" question.

 

[Karl Masks]

If we're getting into interpretations about what a shadow minister really meant and what that might mean in power then we're making the case against Labour look much weaker than it really is. Cut to the basics - we're in a cost of living crisis with a wave of industrial action and Labour have made it clear they oppose the strikes. It's a basic "which side are you on?" question.

No we're getting into what he actually said in what was, ironically, a very clear response to a very real infrastructure issue. Again, your alternative?

 

[andysays]

If we're getting into interpretations about what a shadow minister really meant and what that might mean in power then we're making the case against Labour look much weaker than it really is. Cut to the basics - we're in a cost of living crisis with a wave of industrial action and Labour have made it clear they oppose the strikes. It's a basic "which side are you on?" question.

This is true, but it's also the case that Labour are basically aping the Tories on pretty much everything, so I think it's valid to point out their position in a whole range of different areas and conclude that they are shit in all of them.

 

[belboid]

Doesn't the lack of any real statement of intent concern you? A party can state their intentions well before they have practically worked out plans. But not Starmer's Labour, because it is held hostage by fortune rather than having any principles. I think danny's post is enough indication that wherever the political winds blow, Labour in its current form will do its damnedest to tack rightward.

Concern me? Yes it does, it's fucking infuriating. The whole of electoralism is infuriating (especially with our voting system). They will need pushing by working-class movements to do something rather better (to say the least). But that doesn't mean they're exactly the same. Not being different enough os not the same as not being different.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's fairly clear what he's saying.

Yes it is.

Your following paragraph doesn’t parse. I don’t know what you’re saying. But you appear to be making up what you think I believe.

For clarity: I think both the Tory and Labour immigration policies are racist, inhumane, and more to the point, pointless. You don’t stop migration at the English Channel, this side or that. What we see now on the English Channel is just a beginning as climate, economic and warfare processes accelerate. Treating boats on the Channel as a discrete issue is pointless. It cannot be separated from the context.

Labour could say something along those lines if they wanted. But they don’t, because they are trying to appear “serious” on immigration for the audience they are trying to impress. Not only that, once in power they will continue to act “serious”. By which I mean short sighted and racist.

 

[Knotted]

No we're getting into what he actually said in what was, ironically, a very clear response to a very real infrastructure issue. Again, your alternative?

I don't really care what Stephen Kinnock said but I agree with you that it's not the gotcha it was being made out to be.

However, I think that a few years into the (almost) certain Labour government that people will be looking for alternatives and that will likely be mainly hard right/far right alternatives. The question of how people should vote is not particularly important, the question is what strategy the left can come up with to counter the situation we're in.

 

[belboid]

Yes it is.

Your following paragraph doesn’t parse. I don’t know what you’re saying. But you appear to be making up what you think I believe.

For clarity: I think both the Tory and Labour immigration policies are racist, inhumane, and more to the point, pointless. You don’t stop migration at the English Channel, this side or that. What we see now on the English Channel is just a beginning as climate, economic and warfare processes accelerate. Treating boats on the Channel as a discrete issue is pointless. It cannot be separated from the context.

Labour could say something along those lines if they wanted. But they don’t, because they are trying to appear “serious” on immigration for the audience they are trying to impress. Not only that, once in power they will continue to act “serious”. By which I mean short sighted and racist.

Actually, they have made some points along those lines. While all the noise is around boats/hotels/small boats (and it IS part of Cooper's five point plan to end hotel use - they weren't using barges when she made the statement) even Labour have made the obvious point that the need is to reform and reintroduce legal routes for asylum seeking. The lack of those is what causes people to use small boats. But it aint a sexy issue, so it gets brushed under the carpet.

Also, restoring aid to 0.7% and targeting it at humanitarian crises would reduce the need for asylum in the first place.

But they're boring (and probably popular) policies so the headlines all go on the noisy ones.

 

[teqniq]

i notice he says scrapping the Rwanda plan (great) and diverting the money into cross-border policing to stop the smugglers. This last is complete bullshit. The smugglers could be closed down overnight by providing legal safe routes to claim asylum.

 

[Karl Masks]

Yes it is.

So we agree that Labour will inherit a huge infrastructure problem and an asylum systme in chaos. So your alternative to clearing the backlog as quickly as possible is...?

Your following paragraph doesn’t parse. I don’t know what you’re saying. But you appear to be making up what you think I believe.

There wasn't a following paragraph. I've no idea what you're referring to.

For clarity: I think both the Tory and Labour immigration policies are racist, inhumane, and more to the point, pointless. You don’t stop migration at the English Channel, this side or that. What we see now on the English Channel is just a beginning as climate, economic and warfare processes accelerate. Treating boats on the Channel as a discrete issue is pointless. It cannot be separated from the context.

Please outline the Labour party policy for us here so we can see how it is racist and inhumane. I'm sure it won't be ideal, but if you believe it will be the equal of the race baiting chaos led by Bravernman then you are too dishonest to continue the conversation with

 

[danny la rouge]

There wasn't a following paragraph. I

There was.

 

[Karl Masks]

I don't really care what Stephen Kinnock said but I agree with you that it's not the gotcha it was being made out to be.

However, I think that a few years into the (almost) certain Labour government that people will be looking for alternatives and that will likely be mainly hard right/far right alternatives. The question of how people should vote is not particularly important, the question is what strategy the left can come up with to counter the situation we're in.

alternatives to what?

 

[Karl Masks]

There was.

That's now twice you've dodged the question: What is your alternative to what Kinnock proposed?