• Oxford Green Energy

    Yellows Forum is DELIGHTED to announce a partnership with Oxford Green Energy, who become our sustainability partner.

    See here for more information, including a YF member discount.

National Politics 🔴 The Labour Party

It's amusing how the language of Farage which once appalled Labour has now become one of their phrases! .

We have had about 5 successive government's who talk tough on immigration. Then you see the figures at the end of the year and it's delivered zilch.
I always voted Labour, that was when they represented the working class. I'm politically homeless now, this lot are just a poor version of the tories and they were s**t. The Guardian readers on here will tell you brexit only benefitted the rich, well i'm not rich, I never have been but when we left the EU I got four pay rises in two years and was about 1/3rd better off. Why? Because every time the company wanted temps the agencies didn't have any or the few they did have were fecking useless. We became the companies "number one priority", without us they were fucked and they knew it. Now we have immigrants from everywhere to insure wages are nailed down and the wealthy get their way.
 
I always voted Labour, that was when they represented the working class. I'm politically homeless now, this lot are just a poor version of the tories and they were s**t. The Guardian readers on here will tell you brexit only benefitted the rich, well i'm not rich, I never have been but when we left the EU I got four pay rises in two years and was about 1/3rd better off. Why? Because every time the company wanted temps the agencies didn't have any or the few they did have were fecking useless. We became the companies "number one priority", without us they were fucked and they knew it. Now we have immigrants from everywhere to insure wages are nailed down and the wealthy get their way.
I don't have any statistics to prove it but I'd imagine the number of people who consider themselves politically homeless in the UK.

Brexit I think is certainly one issue that broke Labours support base forever. I think you saw that with the "Red Wall" voting for Boris all those years ago.

Politics was just easier to understand in a more class-bound Britain. Generally it was felt before the 80s (from what I understand) that Labour represented the working class, and the Tories represented the middle class.

Then after thatcherism everything became a bit more confusing with the Tories representing working class people who wanted to earn money and go up the money ranks and traditional conservative people/middle class people.

It sounded like the Thatcherite era also caused a schism with Labour. Some wanting to stick to their roots but maybe stuck in a class war which was starting to no longer exist in the same way, some wanting to embrace a more centre-left/ "Blue Labour/ new labour" position, which led to Blairism and the late 90s/2000s era.

With mass immigration on a scale never seen before happening over the last 30 years it's made the picture even more confusing.

I think it's seen the Tories are now the party of "old money" / "rural countryside" people, but have lost support of centrist suburban middle class people to the Lib Dems and Labour.

To me Labours key demographic has shifted to university students/ university students going into creative jobs. I imagine they capture a huge amount of votes from first and second generation immigrants, NHS workers/any unionised job workers

But they've lost the support of white working class people, not entirely but badly, I think lots of white working class have likely turned to Tories or Reform.

I admit to most friends I didn't vote in the last election (I did spoil my ballot) and lots can't understand it. But not only do I not believe any party represents my feelings, I also don't have any faith in the system to deliver any meaningful change. It's hugely outdated.

I have voted before but only one single issue things like Brexit/trying to signal my opposition to *mass* migration on a level almost unheard of in human history

Since c1922 we have had basically only conservative and labour governments. It doesn't feel like a proper choice.

When you see other countries voting in the likes of Wilders/Netanyahu/Trump etc it does show a lot of people feel their political systems aren't fit for purpose and are voting in more of the "strong man" type to try and cut through the bureaucracy and improve people's lives.

Most of the political systems in the west are hundreds and hundreds of years old and need an overhaul.
 
I call a full circle closure.

This country needs proper PR.

You then get a government that is far more representative of "us" the electorate. You would get more people interested in politics and therefore better folk to choose from.

The system and "grey suits" of the state machine will never allow it.

So you get folk looking for something different.
 
Dear Mr Starmer
I have to say that I'm very impressed at the idea of your "Return Hubs" for those who choose to enter the U.K. illegally.
According to the news, you haven't got any further than the idea stage and are considering where to place them, with Albania being prominently mentioned.
Have you considered Rwanda?
Love from
Rishi Sunak

😂 😂 😂
 
I call a full circle closure.

This country needs proper PR.

You then get a government that is far more representative of "us" the electorate. You would get more people interested in politics and therefore better folk to choose from.

The system and "grey suits" of the state machine will never allow it.

So you get folk looking for something different.
Absolutely.

I used to gawp at American politics show talking about "the black vote" and the "Hispanic vote" and think that god we don't live in such a racially fragmentic society.

We are now heading the exact same way. People voting for parties on ethno-religous grounds thinking one of the main two parties defends their interests.

PR would possibly make politics less toxic with more options so people could vote on more than just broad macro concepts.
 
We`ve just had our County Council elections........... the result below (elected in bold)
Conservative Candidate 1 - 1705
Conservative Candidate 2 - 1953
Reform Candidate 1 - 1733
Reform Candidate 2 - 1589
Green Candidate 1 - 1165
Green Candidate 2 - 1086
Labour Candidate 1 - 410
Labour Candidate 2 - 440

Under STV I would have expected the Greens to have grabbed one seat, the candidates done a pretty good local job in the last CC.
 
I don't have any statistics to prove it but I'd imagine the number of people who consider themselves politically homeless in the UK.

Brexit I think is certainly one issue that broke Labours support base forever. I think you saw that with the "Red Wall" voting for Boris all those years ago.

Politics was just easier to understand in a more class-bound Britain. Generally it was felt before the 80s (from what I understand) that Labour represented the working class, and the Tories represented the middle class.

Then after thatcherism everything became a bit more confusing with the Tories representing working class people who wanted to earn money and go up the money ranks and traditional conservative people/middle class people.

It sounded like the Thatcherite era also caused a schism with Labour. Some wanting to stick to their roots but maybe stuck in a class war which was starting to no longer exist in the same way, some wanting to embrace a more centre-left/ "Blue Labour/ new labour" position, which led to Blairism and the late 90s/2000s era.

With mass immigration on a scale never seen before happening over the last 30 years it's made the picture even more confusing.

I think it's seen the Tories are now the party of "old money" / "rural countryside" people, but have lost support of centrist suburban middle class people to the Lib Dems and Labour.

To me Labours key demographic has shifted to university students/ university students going into creative jobs. I imagine they capture a huge amount of votes from first and second generation immigrants, NHS workers/any unionised job workers

But they've lost the support of white working class people, not entirely but badly, I think lots of white working class have likely turned to Tories or Reform.

I admit to most friends I didn't vote in the last election (I did spoil my ballot) and lots can't understand it. But not only do I not believe any party represents my feelings, I also don't have any faith in the system to deliver any meaningful change. It's hugely outdated.

I have voted before but only one single issue things like Brexit/trying to signal my opposition to *mass* migration on a level almost unheard of in human history

Since c1922 we have had basically only conservative and labour governments. It doesn't feel like a proper choice.

When you see other countries voting in the likes of Wilders/Netanyahu/Trump etc it does show a lot of people feel their political systems aren't fit for purpose and are voting in more of the "strong man" type to try and cut through the bureaucracy and improve people's lives.

Most of the political systems in the west are hundreds and hundreds of years old and need an overhaul.
In general terms my memory of Labour MP's were that they were working class people/had a working class family/were from working class areas etc Now they are university students/from middle class families/Islington elite/champagne socialists/career politicians that read the Guardian and distance themselves from the working class, often looking down their noses and sneering at them, telling them how to think and calling them thick/racist/far right etc without having any idea why they may feel the way they do or show any desire to find out why. They are pro migration which helps the wealthy and hinders the poorer working class but to suggest that leads to the inevitable.
They then claim to have come up with a budget for "working people" that shits all over them and now they are going to send illegal immigrants to Albania but havent actually asked Albania. Amazing stuff.
 
History lesson.......

In around 55 B.C. Julius Caesar tried to invade Britain, he was repelled.
In 43A.D. the Emperor Claudius lead a successful invasion.

What the Romans wanted was the wealth and natural resources of Britain.

Underpinning the prospect of invasion was the Romans’ innate belief in their right to conquer non-Roman peoples.
They were confident that the gods had gifted them the known world and that it was their right and duty to rule it all in their ‘civilised’ manner.

That scene is being replayed today.

The modern day "Romans" are the "Doctors, Scientists, and Engineers" coming across the channel in their boats.
They have the same aim, their instruction book, the Q'ran, tells them what they are to do.
In 45 A.D. Britain was defeated by a force of around 20,000 fighting men.
There were over 30,000 small boat asylum seekers last year alone, this year the figure is expected to exceed that.

The current Government has no plan to deal with it.

By the time history repeats itself I`ll be long gone............
 
History lesson.......

In around 55 B.C. Julius Caesar tried to invade Britain, he was repelled.
In 43A.D. the Emperor Claudius lead a successful invasion.

What the Romans wanted was the wealth and natural resources of Britain.

Underpinning the prospect of invasion was the Romans’ innate belief in their right to conquer non-Roman peoples.
They were confident that the gods had gifted them the known world and that it was their right and duty to rule it all in their ‘civilised’ manner.

That scene is being replayed today.

The modern day "Romans" are the "Doctors, Scientists, and Engineers" coming across the channel in their boats.
They have the same aim, their instruction book, the Q'ran, tells them what they are to do.
In 45 A.D. Britain was defeated by a force of around 20,000 fighting men.
There were over 30,000 small boat asylum seekers last year alone, this year the figure is expected to exceed that.

The current Government has no plan to deal with it.

By the time history repeats itself I`ll be long gone............

Bloody hell, that is full on conspiracy nut level posting.
 
Bloody hell, that is full on conspiracy nut level posting.

A "friend" posted it on social media........... it caused many such replies.

Although, barring the UK population being much larger now than in the 1st Century and the Romans being far more organised militarily, there is a degree of resonance. ;)
 
What you don't understand about this is that voluntary departures are not those who just pack their bags and leave of their own volition. These are those subject to deportation who agree to leave without a fight (legally and sometimes physically). This means that they leave earlier and at a significantly lower cost than those who are subject to "forced removal".



Of course it us, which is why I said that this was a good start rather than a solution. For the last few years of their term, the Tories all but stopped processing asylum claims in the hope that huge numbers in hotels would force the Lords to approve the Rwanda scheme. But, like so many things they did, that failed and we were left with the situation where tens of thousands of unknown asylum seekers needed to be held somewhere whilst the system is fixed.

These figures suggest that the system is beginning to work with greater levels of deportations in every category so far, and this is likely to increase further once we clear the backlog of claims.

As one of the "kick them out" brigade, I thought that you would welcome this?
The reason the Tories " failed " as you put it is because the UK was tied to all the EU regulations regarding immigration. It was when Brexit was finally achieved that the Tories were able to act. They wanted the Rwanda scheme but Labour did all they could to block it and then they scrapped it. I think the Rwanda scheme would have worked.
 
"What the Romans wanted was the wealth and natural resources of Britain."

Not like we haven't done the same to half the globe!

Yeah........... spreading democracy, abolishing slavery, raising millions of people from poverty, industrial revolution & trade across the globe.............. we know it was better when more of it was pink. ;)
 
History lesson.......

In around 55 B.C. Julius Caesar tried to invade Britain, he was repelled.
In 43A.D. the Emperor Claudius lead a successful invasion.

What the Romans wanted was the wealth and natural resources of Britain.

Underpinning the prospect of invasion was the Romans’ innate belief in their right to conquer non-Roman peoples.
They were confident that the gods had gifted them the known world and that it was their right and duty to rule it all in their ‘civilised’ manner.

That scene is being replayed today.

The modern day "Romans" are the "Doctors, Scientists, and Engineers" coming across the channel in their boats.
They have the same aim, their instruction book, the Q'ran, tells them what they are to do.
In 45 A.D. Britain was defeated by a force of around 20,000 fighting men.
There were over 30,000 small boat asylum seekers last year alone, this year the figure is expected to exceed that.

The current Government has no plan to deal with it.

By the time history repeats itself I`ll be long gone............
But think of all the things the Romans did for us.
 
The reason the Tories " failed " as you put it is because the UK was tied to all the EU regulations regarding immigration. It was when Brexit was finally achieved that the Tories were able to act. They wanted the Rwanda scheme but Labour did all they could to block it and then they scrapped it. I think the Rwanda scheme would have worked.
That's not true.

The Tories failed because they cut the immigration service to the bone whilst allowing asylum applications to build up so that they could further the Rwanda plan.

Rwanda was not stopped by EU regulations. It was deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court because Rwanda was deemed by all metrics to be an unsafe country. Our own Foreign Office advised against travel to Rwanda for this reason.

The Government then changed the law despite this failing through the Lords, with numerous Tory Peers and cross benches voting against it.

The Tories then had the opportunity to finally test this and start sending people to Rwanda. But they instead decided to call and election months earlier than needed, mainly due to them knowing that it would never work. But even if it had worked, there were a few hundred spaces, and they were all hugely more expensive that holding people in hotels.

What would we have done with the tens of thousands of asylum seekers already in the UK? With the Rwanda spaces being filled in the first few days of a scheme starting, how would this become any sort of deterrent?
 
Deterrents you say?

No hotels - detection camps until their identity is established.
No admission "by default" - offshore it, detain them, establish the facts.

Offer nothing but hardship and you`ll be amazed what happens.

Much love

Australia
They did have a barge in Portland but got rid and stated that none of the migrants would be housed in Hotels in Weymouth, if they remove them from hotels they will have to use former military camps, no doubt f that happens they will blame the previous 14 years.
Starmer and donate just as bad.
 
Deterrents you say?

No hotels - detection camps until their identity is established.
No admission "by default" - offshore it, detain them, establish the facts.

Offer nothing but hardship and you`ll be amazed what happens.

Much love

Australia
You forgot to add "ergo" to your repetitive bingo!
 
That's not true.

The Tories failed because they cut the immigration service to the bone whilst allowing asylum applications to build up so that they could further the Rwanda plan.

Rwanda was not stopped by EU regulations. It was deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court because Rwanda was deemed by all metrics to be an unsafe country. Our own Foreign Office advised against travel to Rwanda for this reason.

The Government then changed the law despite this failing through the Lords, with numerous Tory Peers and cross benches voting against it.

The Tories then had the opportunity to finally test this and start sending people to Rwanda. But they instead decided to call and election months earlier than needed, mainly due to them knowing that it would never work. But even if it had worked, there were a few hundred spaces, and they were all hugely more expensive that holding people in hotels.

What would we have done with the tens of thousands of asylum seekers already in the UK? With the Rwanda spaces being filled in the first few days of a scheme starting, how would this become any sort of deterrent?
I stand by my comments in my original post. The Tories immigration plan was hindered by EU regulations until Brexit happened. This has been confirmed by Tory grandees.
 
I stand by my comments in my original post. The Tories immigration plan was hindered by EU regulations until Brexit happened. This has been confirmed by Tory grandees.

Did the EU make them make them increase immigration to record numbers?
 
With the EU' s freedom of movement regulations, they couldn't do anything about it.

Johnson was happy enough for it to happen, it carried on after we had left the EU. The Tory party is just trying to get back into favour, as it’s virtually dead, on what is the biggest issue, but unfortunately for them people won’t forget their role in it.
 
I stand by my comments in my original post. The Tories immigration plan was hindered by EU regulations until Brexit happened. This has been confirmed by Tory grandees.

What was our immigration levels before Brexit and what have they been like since?

I thought that Brexit would enable us to control our borders and would put billions back into public services. So how did we end up with 1.2m people coming into the UK in the last year of the Tories reign and an immigration service cut back so severely that they were unable to process claims?
 
With the EU' s freedom of movement regulations, they couldn't do anything about it.

Immigration into the UK doubled after Brexit. It was around 600k in 2020, and it was 1.2m last year.

>95% of it was legal migration that the Tory government allowed.

Rwanda would have had minimal effect - if it had worked exactly as they hoped, it would have served as a deterrent and massively reduced small boat crossings......but total migration would still have been well over a million.

No, in their final year in power, the Tory government chose to allow the most migrants into the country in any year ever.

Why? Because it props up the bloated tertiary education system, and provides a cheap source of qualified labour for the health service, care services and their corporate paymasters.

And if you don't believe me - go and look up the figures for yourself. They are public information.
 
Johnson was happy enough for it to happen, it carried on after we had left the EU. The Tory party is just trying to get back into favour, as it’s virtually dead, on what is the biggest issue, but unfortunately for them people won’t forget their role in it.
Labour started it with freedom of movement. Tories said they would cut it to 10's of thousands when they had zero control over freedom of movement. Tories said they would cut it when they could have.... but didnt. Labour.....

Tories = Stop the boats, send them to Rwanda
Labour = Smash the gangs, send them to Albania

Under both illegal and legal numbers rose/are rising.

We needed immigration to fill vacancies for builders. doctors, nurses, teachers, care workers etc. Millions of people later and we need immigration to fill more vacancies for builders. doctors, nurses, teachers, care workers etc because all these services/skills are in more need than ever. Who benefits from mass immigration keeping wages low? Who suffers from a shortage of housing, doctors, nurses, care workers? Who funds the major parties? I start a new job Monday, im earning what I was earning 20 years ago. Mass immigration benefits the rich and the political class.

Vote Green = More immigration
Vote Liberal = More immigration
Vote Reform = Your racist
 
Labour started it with freedom of movement. Tories said they would cut it to 10's of thousands when they had zero control over freedom of movement. Tories said they would cut it when they could have.... but didnt. Labour.....

Tories = Stop the boats, send them to Rwanda
Labour = Smash the gangs, send them to Albania

Under both illegal and legal numbers rose/are rising.

We needed immigration to fill vacancies for builders. doctors, nurses, teachers, care workers etc. Millions of people later and we need immigration to fill more vacancies for builders. doctors, nurses, teachers, care workers etc because all these services/skills are in more need than ever. Who benefits from mass immigration keeping wages low? Who suffers from a shortage of housing, doctors, nurses, care workers? Who funds the major parties? I start a new job Monday, im earning what I was earning 20 years ago. Mass immigration benefits the rich and the political class.

Vote Green = More immigration
Vote Liberal = More immigration
Vote Reform = Your racist

That just isn't true. UK Governments seemed to only use the rules for limited numbers/reasons and deliberately chose not to use the rules as they could. I may be remembering incorrectly (don't think so though) but other EU Govts were far more active in using the rules and deported far more.

EU nationals had a higher threshold compared to non EU nationals but we could deport EU citizens as explained by this AI summary (sources include migration observatory and documents on Gov.uk and another 4):

Yes, the UK government could have deported EU citizens prior to Brexit, but the grounds for doing so were stricter than for deporting non-EU nationals. EU citizens could be removed for not exercising their treaty rights (e.g., if they weren't a worker, self-employed, self-sufficient, or a student) or on public policy grounds, such as due to a criminal conviction or for national security reasons.

Reasons for Deportation:
  • Failure to Exercise Treaty Rights:
    EU citizens could be removed if they were not actively exercising their rights as outlined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This meant they couldn't be considered a "resident" if they weren't a worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient, or a student.

  • Public Policy Grounds:
    EU citizens could be deported on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. This could include criminal convictions, especially if the offence was serious or persistent, or if there were concerns about national security.

  • Illegal Entry:
    EU citizens could be removed if they entered the UK illegally, such as through fraud, false documentation, or by circumventing border controls.
Important Considerations:
  • Higher Threshold for EU Nationals:
    The threshold for demonstrating that deportation of an EU national was in the interest of the public good, public health, or public security was generally higher than for non-EU nationals.

  • Length of Residence:
    The length and permanence of an EU citizen's residence in the UK also played a role in the deportation process. The longer a person had been living in the UK, the higher the threshold for deportation.

  • Criminal Offences:
    EU citizens could still be deported if they were convicted of a criminal offence, even if they had settled status or pre-settled status.
 
Haven’t commented on the migration issue for while as sometimes it’s best to keep out of it with people trying to to twist it and then the tittle tattle starts.
However it was quite funny and excruciating to watch Starmer being made to look a fool by Rama.
 
Haven’t commented on the migration issue for while as sometimes it’s best to keep out of it with people trying to to twist it and then the tittle tattle starts.
However it was quite funny and excruciating to watch Starmer being made to look a fool by Rama.
Absolutely.

Just be thankful he didn't spunk £700 million on Albania as Rishi did with Rwanda ;)
And just imagine how many border force officials that could fund to clear the asylum claims backlog:unsure:
 
Absolutely.

Just be thankful he didn't spunk £700 million on Albania as Rishi did with Rwanda ;)
And just imagine how many border force officials that could fund to clear the asylum claims backlog:unsure:
He is trying to do the same as the Rwanda deal but in Europe and Albania was the country he want to use it may have been cheaper but not by a great deal but Rama pulled his pants down and made the ok look like a laughing stock.
This BS that it wasn’t one of the countries as there are others is BS as well.
The cost of housing asylum seekers while they’re being vetted will be immense.
 
Back
Top Bottom