+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 110

Thread: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

  1. #1

    Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea involving a third party off shore immigration solution, before retreating from the proposal , the question I have for any opposition party , what is your plan, and if this becomes a success or part success would a Labour government reverse or campain
    too so so at the next election .

  2. #2

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea
    I don't think he did

  3. #3

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea involving a third party off shore immigration solution, before retreating from the proposal , the question I have for any opposition party , what is your plan, and if this becomes a success or part success would a Labour government reverse or campain
    too so so at the next election .
    I think it’s high time we had a whataboutery board.

  4. #4

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    I doubt it. But then people in government actually have to make tough decisions, instead of simply opposing everything. But then the British Left tend to get just as angry with Labour governments as they do Tories after a while. I think it's decision making and reality they actually fear most.

    Poll published yesterday shows even Labour voters support the policy by 39% to 36%. I think in time people will slowly realise how repulsive and unsustainable the current situation is and something must be done to stop boats travelling from France.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status...55814705008644.

  5. #5

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    I doubt the BNP or UKIP would reverse it.

    Other than them yes.

    Whats funny is well is the claim that this policy is somehow about caring for the migrants.😂😂😂

  6. #6

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    I doubt it. But then people in government actually have to make tough decisions, instead of simply opposing everything. But then the British Left tend to get just as angry with Labour governments as they do Tories after a while. I think it's decision making and reality they actually fear most.

    Poll published yesterday shows even Labour voters support the policy by 39% to 36%. I think in time people will slowly realise how repulsive and unsustainable the current situation is and something must be done to stop boats travelling from France.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status...55814705008644.
    I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.

  7. #7

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilts View Post
    I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.
    What is the left wing policy on immigration? Historically free movement of people has been a right-wing policy akin to the free market. (See America for most of its history) For most of the last century left wing societies in Europe didn't let you move abroad - many required government permission to move cities even.

    I don't think it's a left/right thing. It's about finding a solution that works and at the very least a solution that doesn't sub-contract out the process to global human trafficking gangs to enrichen themselves by providing the service.

    I agree though that many Labour voters are not particularly "left wing". And nor should they be. Most people just want a decent society and dont really care which ideological branch of this social science provides it. It's as relevant as religious doctrine to the majority of people.

    And thank f**k for that. Imagine how awful the world would be if everyone spoke like we do on here

  8. #8
    International jon1959's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sheffield - out of Roath
    Posts
    12,846

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    What is the left wing policy on immigration? Historically free movement of people has been a right-wing policy akin to the free market. (See America for most of its history) For most of the last century left wing societies in Europe didn't let you move abroad - many required government permission to move cities even.

    I don't think it's a left/right thing. It's about finding a solution that works and at the very least a solution that doesn't sub-contract out the process to global human trafficking gangs to enrichen themselves by providing the service.

    I agree though that many Labour voters are not particularly "left wing". And nor should they be. Most people just want a decent society and dont really care which ideological branch of this social science provides it. It's as relevant as religious doctrine to the majority of people.

    And thank f**k for that. Imagine how awful the world would be if everyone spoke like we do on here
    From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.

    Values and political positions flow from that.

    Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.

    But very different interpretations of decency.

  9. #9

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
    From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.

    Values and political positions flow from that.

    Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.

    But very different interpretations of decency.
    Same with the old mantra of "common sense", it means different things to different people.

    It's a nice catch all for the hard of thinking.

  10. #10

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
    I don't think he did
    He did honest, the left slapped him down.
    Google it on de tinterty thingy

  11. #11

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilts View Post
    I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.
    Particularly Brexit voters

  12. #12

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    He did honest, the left slapped him down.
    Google it on de tinterty thingy
    I am struggling to find anything about it, could you please link it to help an old boy out.

  13. #13
    International jon1959's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sheffield - out of Roath
    Posts
    12,846

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    He did honest, the left slapped him down.
    Google it on de tinterty thingy
    David Blunkett did propose an 'out of EU' asylum processing location around 2003 (Albania and Russia were suggested places) and he was rightly slapped down by the EU, by TUs and by the Labour left - but it was not the same idea that Priti Patel has announced. It was put forward (by one of the most authoritarian and right wing Labour Home Secretaries ever - I know from personal experience) as an entry point to the EU - a clearing house - not as a deportation site from the UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/...es.immigration

  14. #14

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
    I am struggling to find anything about it, could you please link it to help an old boy out.
    First rule of Stupid Club.....There is a Stupid Club!

  15. #15

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
    From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.

    Values and political positions flow from that.

    Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.

    But very different interpretations of decency.
    Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.

    The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).

    I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.

    So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.

    I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.

  16. #16

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.

    The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).

    I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.

    So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.

    I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
    Why is it every single self proclaimed enlightened centrist turns out to be pretty right wing under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

  17. #17

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Doucas View Post
    Why is it every single self proclaimed enlightened centrist turns out to be pretty right wing under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
    Thanks for illustrating my point so promptly.

  18. #18

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.

    The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).

    I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.

    So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.

    I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
    I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.

    The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.

    I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.

    This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.

  19. #19

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
    I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.

    The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.

    I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.

    This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.
    It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

    My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

    Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.

  20. #20

    Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

    My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

    Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.
    What a stretch of imagination it is to say that most people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum system. As someone else posted setting up a processing centre on French soil could be part of that and would take the traffickers out of the system or at least reduce down their activity to the small proportion of people who don't have their applications accepted. As this seems by far the biggest issue for you rather than the people arriving sounds like a winner for you.

    Why a government pandering to people's wish for a good, decent, fair and compassionate asylum system would come up with gunboats in the Channel and forced expulsion to the middle of Africa when there are legal options being opened up rather than closed down is anyone's guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •