Current Affairs The Conservative Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
The language that gargoyle uses aswell, I personally think to support the Rwanda relocation scheme you need to be a special kind of evil, but lets pretend it is a necessary evil to solve a genuine. Even then to take joy at the image of ferrying vulnerable people elsewhere is such an example of cruelty it can only be pure hatred and racism. Shame on the conservatives and their slavish right wing followers
SS style commitment to the cause.
 
It's like the EU debate all over again. No party seems able to have an honest conversation that uses actual evidence. Instead, they engage in soundbite one-upmanship that panders to base fears.
Tories can take a hard line and keep their base and gain some whilst Labour want to keep their liberal support but not scare away their voters who are anti migration.
I would go as far to say that this failing by Labour has been largely responsible for the current shitshow as the arguments have been allowed to lurch further right with little mainstream political resistance
 
Braverman is horrendous, but I can't for the life of me understand why Reeves went along the same lines. She should be saying that offering asylum is good, not only for the poor sods involved but for the country as well.


As a shred of defence, she does talk about illegal immigration there. The problem is, the distinction is so often not made that it reduces anyone claiming asylum to "illegal immigrant".
 
As a shred of defence, she does talk about illegal immigration there. The problem is, the distinction is so often not made that it reduces anyone claiming asylum to "illegal immigrant".

Yeah, not sure that ‘optically’ it’s a good move, as it’s a nuanced topic, but she’s talking about illegal immigration, and deportations (removals - I.e those who have been through the asylum system, then the appeals system, and have come to the end of the road, and are then subject to removal).

It’s a tricky part of the migration system, to remove people who have been refused refugee status and then exhausted all their legal options of appeal and dispute. The process takes so long, that people often then have families here, which complicates the situation, and their country of origin could be somewhere so politically unsettled that it’s not feasible to deport them there.
 
Labour’s stance on immigration has been pathetic for a long time. They’re scared to talk about it

Now isn't the time when the Tories are literally tearing themselves apart.

It's like the EU debate all over again. No party seems able to have an honest conversation that uses actual evidence. Instead, they engage in soundbite one-upmanship that panders to base fears.

I honestly think it will be different with this one.
 
Another of their current "get outs" is to compare our situation to other countries around the world, interest rate rises in the US, other G7 economies that are falling, the Yen tumbling at record levels last week etc....(whataboutery) what they FAIL TO DISCLOSE is that they have stripped this country bare over the last 12 years to such an extent, that people, services and infrasructure cannot fall any lower, there is no where else for them to go as they were already at rock bottom.
 
Yeah, not sure that ‘optically’ it’s a good move, as it’s a nuanced topic, but she’s talking about illegal immigration, and deportations (removals - I.e those who have been through the asylum system, then the appeals system, and have come to the end of the road, and are then subject to removal).

It’s a tricky part of the migration system, to remove people who have been refused refugee status and then exhausted all their legal options of appeal and dispute. The process takes so long, that people often then have families here, which complicates the situation, and their country of origin could be somewhere so politically unsettled that it’s not feasible to deport them there.
The language around the discussion is deliberately unhelpful.

There's an almost mythical standard for who, in the eyes of some, should be eligible. A largely unachievable standard - no men, children, but only young children, women, but not those that embrace the culture they've left, highly skilled, but we don't recognize the expertise, "real" refugees but not others (see Pete's ridiculous distinction between Ukraine and other countries).
 
James Cleverly is about the only one of the current mob that can come out and speak like a normal human on TV. Expect to see a lot more of him in the coming months. Defending a lost cause he's had a valiant go on BBC TV this morning.
 
As a shred of defence, she does talk about illegal immigration there. The problem is, the distinction is so often not made that it reduces anyone claiming asylum to "illegal immigrant".
I've only ever seen the phrase "illegal immigrant" used in relation to those crossing the channel in boats, when my understanding is that all of those people are claiming asylum. In most countries, by far the biggest element of "illegal immigration" is people overstaying their visa. Do we really think it's "those" people that the politicians are talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top