National Politics 🔴 The Labour Party

[bazzer9461]

So the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is giving at least a further 1/2 billion to the French to step up and stop more illegal migration but if they manage to stop some boats there will be a further 150 million.
Starmer and his mob and all the rhetoric about the stopping of boats now realises it’s not as easy as he and his mob thought.

 

[QR]

While I agree to you to an extent, as the junior party in the coalition, there was no way that the Lib Dems could be expected to honour and implement all of their manifesto pledges (coalition politics simply doesn't work like that), and given the imbalance in MPs they had very little political leverage. Their only real weapon was the threat of collapsing the coalition, which - as a party advocating proportional representation which generally produces coalitions - would hardly be a smart tactic.

Cameron totally stiffed the Lib Dems over the AV referendum. The Lib Dems wanted a referendum on PR, but Cameron gave them the Alternative Vote instead (not proper PR) and then lied about it. Under AV, very occasionally when there are multiple candidates with similar percentage vote share, the candidate that gets elected will not be the candidate with the most first-choice votes, but a compromise candidate who gets a lot of second-choice votes (i.e. one acceptable to a lot of voters when there is no clear winner). But Cameron used the analogy of a losing boxer being awarded the belt by the judges –which is straighforwardly bullshit: in a two-horse race, AV will always elect the candidate with the higher vote; second-choice votes are irrelevant.

This really annoyed me at the time: I'd taken the time to understand how the proposed system worked, and then here was the Prime Minister of Great Britain lying, deliberately, about it to the British public. Or not understanding the thing he was criticising, which is possibly worse.

So forgive me if I don't entirely condemn the Lib Dems for changing policy when the circumstances changed. The tuition fees thing was a terrible bit of politics tactically, but it's weird how a minor thing becomes embedded, and defines the party in people's minds for what is well over a decade now. This childish affection for "strong government" and simple election mechanisms (not that the alternatives are complicated - the rules determining a football team's position in the league table are way more complicated than any electoral system and everybody manages that) is what has bequeathed us a huge Labour Party majority on a minor lead in vote share.

Whereas I condemn the Lib Dems 100%.
They had a choice. They could have gone into coalition government with Labour and far more of their policies would have had a chance of seeing the light of day. They fell for Cameron's flannel and in the process have done the country a whole heap of possibly irreversible damage.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

So the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is giving at least a further 1/2 billion to the French to step up and stop more illegal migration but if they manage to stop some boats there will be a further 150 million.
Starmer and his mob and all the rhetoric about the stopping of boats now realises it’s not as easy as he and his mob thought.

I don't think it's "Starmer and his mob" who are obsessed with "stopping the boats". They probably wonder - as do I - why this minor inconvenience occupies so much of the electorate's attention. If Labour had any balls, they'd try to explain why it's really not a big issue, but unfortunately Starmers has decided to appease Reform and the billionaire-owned tabloids.

(Cue the usually suspects telling me that I'm wrong, and that this <1% of government expenditure is much, much more important than the remaining 99%, and that their "legitimate concerns" are definitely nothing to do with xenophia.)

 

[bazzer9461]

I don't think it's "Starmer and his mob" who are obsessed with "stopping the boats". They probably wonder - as do I - why this minor inconvenience occupies so much of the electorate's attention. If Labour had any balls, they'd try to explain why it's really not a big issue, but unfortunately Starmers has decided to appease Reform and the billionaire-owned tabloids.

(Cue the usually suspects telling me that I'm wrong, and that this 1% of government expenditure is much, much more important than the remaining 99%, and that their "legitimate concerns" are definitely nothing to do with xenophia.)

I think it is an issue 1000’s have crossed every year for the last 10 years or so and we’ve been paying the French an absolute fortune to try and prevent these crossings, guess what? “ it ain’t working “ and Starmer and I think it was Yvette Cooper who was home secretary at the time said that stopping the gangs was a priority and Now Shaban Mamhood is chucking even more money but I don’t think that will be an end product.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Whereas I condemn the Lib Dems 100%.
They had a choice. They could have gone into coalition government with Labour and far more of their policies would have had a chance of seeing the light of day. They fell for Cameron's flannel and in the process have done the country a whole heap of possibly irreversible damage.

No, they couldn't, for two very simple reasons.

1) Gordon Brown was deeply, deeply unpopular at the time, which is why he had just lost Labour's majority to the Tories. The Lib Dems propping up a minority Labour government would have (rightly, IMO, even though I'm left of centre myself) been seen as a lefty stitch-up and would have probably destroyed the Libs as a party. Starmer gets enough s**t from the rightwing tabloids today with an actual majority; imagine what it would have been like if their preferred party had just won an election and then been denied their turn in Number 10.

2) Labour and the Lib Dems simply didn't have the seats between them to make it work. A coalition needs a majority, even if it's a slim one.

There were other possibilities in 2010 - a "confidence and supply" arrangement, or a minority Tory government, or another election. I disliked the Tories as much as you do, but the notion that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition was workable in 2010 is pure fantasy. The coalition we got was the only coalition that was on the table.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

I think it is an issue 1000’s have crossed every year for the last 10 years or so and we’ve been paying the French an absolute fortune to try and prevent these crossings, guess what? “ it ain’t working “ and Starmer and I think it was Yvette Cooper who was home secretary at the time said that stopping the gangs was a priority and Now Shaban Mamhood is chucking even more money but I don’t think that will be an end product.

How much does irregular immigration cost the taxpayer, Baz, and what proportion is that of government spending? You must know, since you're so confident that it's a massive problem.

(Tumbleweed.)

 

[Symp59]

How much does irregular immigration cost the taxpayer, Baz? You must know, since you're so confident that it's a massive problem.

(Tumbleweed.)

£15 billion and counting plus £334 billion for the welfare state .

 

[tonyw]

2) Labour and the Lib Dems simply didn't have the seats between them to make it work. A coalition needs a majority, even if it's a slim one.

There were other possibilities in 2010 - a "confidence and supply" arrangement, or a minority Tory government, or another election. I disliked the Tories as much as you do, but the notion that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition was workable in 2010 is pure fantasy. The coalition we got was the only coalition that was on the table.

Was halfway through making this same point myself - even if they added in the Greens' seat and the SDLP's three and took into account that Sinn Fein's MPs didn't vote.....they still would have needed the Scottish Nationalists to get to a majority government.

The first roadbump, that government would have dissolved spectacularly.

Nah, the Lib Dems did the only appropriate thing at the time. Their problem was that they were incredibly politically naive compared to the Tories, and managed to get steered by Cameron and co. into a position where they got no credit for the good stuff, but all the blame for the unpopular policies........and because of that, they got decimated at the following election and we got Cameron solo, and because of that we ended up with Brexit and Bojo.......

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Was halfway through making this same point myself - even if they added in the Green's seat and the SDLP's three and took into account that Sinn Fein's MPs didn't vote.....they still would have needed the Scottish Nationalists to get to a majority government.

The first roadbump, that government would have dissolved spectacularly.

Nah, the Lib Dems did the only appropriate thing at the time. Their problem was that they were incredibly politically naive compared to the Tories, and managed to get steered by Cameron and co. into a position where they got no credit for the good stuff, but all the blame for the unpopular policies........and because of that, they got decimated at the following election and we got Cameron solo, and because of that we ended up with Brexit and Bojo.......

Spot on.

 

[bazzer9461]

How much does irregular immigration cost the taxpayer, Baz, and what proportion is that of government spending? You must know, since you're so confident that it's a massive problem.

(Tumbleweed.)

it’s cost over 15 billion since 2016 so I would say quite A lot, wouldn’t you?

 

[HayfieldYellow]

it’s cost over 15 billion since 2016 so I would say quite A lot, wouldn’t you?

No, I wouldn't. Because - and sorry to be patronising - I understand the scales we're talking about.

In 2016 Government spending was around £800 billion a year, and it is currently about £1300 billion a year. I don't have the exact numbers for each year to hand, so I can't give you an exact figure, but even if it hadn't risen, total government spending over that decade would be more than £8 trillion - that's £8000 billion. Your £15 billion is small change. The same as having eighty quid in your pocket and obsessing about dropping 15 pence down a drain.

 

[Essexyellows]

While I agree to you to an extent, as the junior party in the coalition, there was no way that the Lib Dems could be expected to honour and implement all of their manifesto pledges (coalition politics simply doesn't work like that), and given the imbalance in MPs they had very little political leverage. Their only real weapon was the threat of collapsing the coalition, which - as a party advocating proportional representation which generally produces coalitions - would hardly be a smart tactic.

Cameron totally stiffed the Lib Dems over the AV referendum. The Lib Dems wanted a referendum on PR, but Cameron gave them the Alternative Vote instead (not proper PR) and then lied about it. Under AV, very occasionally when there are multiple candidates with similar percentage vote share, the candidate that gets elected will not be the candidate with the most first-choice votes, but a compromise candidate who gets a lot of second-choice votes (i.e. one acceptable to a lot of voters when there is no clear winner). But Cameron used the analogy of a losing boxer being awarded the belt by the judges –which is straighforwardly bullshit: in a two-horse race, AV will always elect the candidate with the higher vote; second-choice votes are irrelevant.

This really annoyed me at the time: I'd taken the time to understand how the proposed system worked, and then here was the Prime Minister of Great Britain lying, deliberately, about it to the British public. Or not understanding the thing he was criticising, which is possibly worse.

So forgive me if I don't entirely condemn the Lib Dems for changing policy when the circumstances changed. The tuition fees thing was a terrible bit of politics tactically, but it's weird how a minor thing becomes embedded, and defines the party in people's minds for what is well over a decade now. This childish affection for "strong government" and simple election mechanisms (not that the alternatives are complicated - the rules determining a football team's position in the league table are way more complicated than any electoral system and everybody manages that) is what has bequeathed us a huge Labour Party majority on a minor lead in vote share.

It`s likely we don`t agree on much but this is the "once in a generation" opportunity that was missed.

And nobody will try again because FPTP suits the status quo.

 

[QR]

Was halfway through making this same point myself - even if they added in the Greens' seat and the SDLP's three and took into account that Sinn Fein's MPs didn't vote.....they still would have needed the Scottish Nationalists to get to a majority government.

The first roadbump, that government would have dissolved spectacularly.

Nah, the Lib Dems did the only appropriate thing at the time. Their problem was that they were incredibly politically naive compared to the Tories, and managed to get steered by Cameron and co. into a position where they got no credit for the good stuff, but all the blame for the unpopular policies........and because of that, they got decimated at the following election and we got Cameron solo, and because of that we ended up with Brexit and Bojo.......

However almost everyone on here thinks we should have proportional representation where exactly this kind of compromise would be essential.

 

[tonyw]

However almost everyone on here thinks we should have proportional representation where exactly this kind of compromise would be essential.

Compromise politics - absolutely. 2-3 parties with sometimes disparate views that have to work together to find a middle ground.
I don't know of too many European coalitions that have survived trying to stitch together five parties, as a 2010 Lib/Lab/Green/SDLP/SNP coalition would have had to try and do!

(EDIT - just looked it up.....because I can't resist trying to find some evidence to back up what I post. And there is one - the current Belgian government is a seven party coalition. Call themselves the Vivaldi coalition, after the colours of the Four Seasons apparently. And it took them 500 days (!?!) from the election to come to an agreement)

Also - and this is damning with the faintest of faint praise - for as much as the 2010 Lib/Con coalition government made some bad decisions, I do think that they were a more capable bunch than any of the governments that have succeeded it.

 

[Toe knee]

Labour & Conservatives are finished...
They sold their soul..
Reform & The Greens are the new left & right ...

 

[lodeyellow]

Labour & Conservatives are finished...
The sold their soul..
Reform & The Greens are the new left & right ...

Certainly not something to celebrate. Extremely depressing.

 

[QR]

Labour & Conservatives are finished...
The sold their soul..
Reform & The Greens are the new left & right ...

Some might say a choice between crazy and evil rather than a little bit less and a little bit more incompetent. Not me through.

 

[Toe knee]

Certainly not something to celebrate. Extremely depressing.

Who's celebrating??? I hate every party all equally with a passion....

 

[lodeyellow]

Who's celebrating??? I hate every party all equally with a passion....

Even the Lib Dems … ?

 

[Marked Ox]

£15 billion and counting plus £334 billion for the welfare state .

Why are you counting the full Welfare budget for irregular immigration?

 

[Symp59]

Why are you counting the full Welfare budget for irregular immigration?

Because it's massive and alot of immigration will be in that not just the 15 billion

 

[Marked Ox]

Because it's massive and alot of immigration will be in that not just the 15 billion

The biggest part of the welfare budget is the state pension:

"Social security spending in Great Britain​

In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £322.6 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.6% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.

Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £145.0 billion on working age and children welfare. This includes spending on Universal Credit and its predecessors, and non-DWP welfare spending.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £77.1 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, and £37.3 billion on housing benefits."

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance


This is what Asylum Seekers/irregular immigrants can get:

- What you'll get

You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.

- Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.

You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

- Cash support

You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.

Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

If your accommodation provides your meals
You’ll get £9.95 for each person in your household instead.

If you’ve been refused asylum but you’re still eligible for support
You’ll be given:

somewhere to live.
£49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries (or £9.95 per person if your accommodation provides your meals).

You will not be given:

the payment card if you do not take the offer of somewhere to live.
any money.

- Extra money for mothers and young children

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child aged 3 or under. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situationExtra payment per week

Pregnant mother£5.25
Baby under 1 year old£9.50
Child aged 1 to 3£5.25

Maternity payment

You can apply for a one-off £300 maternity payment if your baby is due in 11 weeks or less, or if your baby is under 6 months old.

- Healthcare

You may get free National Health Service (NHS) healthcare, such as to see a doctor or get hospital treatment.

You’ll also get:

free prescriptions for medicine
free dental care for your teeth
free eyesight tests
help paying for glasses

- Education

Your children must attend school if they are aged 5 to 17. All state schools are free and your children may be able to get free school meals.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

It isn't going to be that much of the welfare budget considering irregular immigration was 46k for the year ending December 2025. There were 101k asylum claims in the same year in total.

In the previous year, of 135k asylum claims given initial decisions 42% (previous year 47%) were granted.

As of Dec '25, 107k were in receipt of the above Asylum support.

Summary of latest statistics

www.gov.uk

Not sure that is anywhere near a lot of the welfare budget as you've suggested.

 

[Essexyellows]

Wonder if the Labour MP`s will be voting with their conscience or otherwise?

Keir Starmer faces vote on inquiry over Mandelson vetting claims

No 10 brands the move "a desperate political stunt by the Conservative Party", which had asked for the vote.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Marked Ox]

Wonder if the Labour MP`s will be voting with their conscience or otherwise?

Keir Starmer faces vote on inquiry over Mandelson vetting claims

No 10 brands the move "a desperate political stunt by the Conservative Party", which had asked for the vote.

www.bbc.co.uk

It'll be the same as the Tories previously on matters of confidence, some may vote with but most will vote to support No.10.

It is playing politics nowadays just as trying to get the vote is likewise playing performative politics. I may be wrong but didn't Boris Johnson face a number of these situations brought by the opposition but they never happened?

Also, as an aside did the Russian interference Report that Boris kept can kicking ever get published?

 

[Essexyellows]

It'll be the same as the Tories previously on matters of confidence, some may vote with but most will vote to support No.10.

It is playing politics nowadays just as trying to get the vote is likewise playing performative politics. I may be wrong but didn't Boris Johnson face a number of these situations brought by the opposition but they never happened?

Also, as an aside did the Russian interference Report that Boris kept can kicking ever get published?

Yep........... be put to bed by "the party".

Talking of things that happened a while ago............

Trial started today I do believe.

THREE MEN TO FACE OLD BAILEY JURY OVER FIRES AT STARMER LINKED PROPERTIES - Labour Heartlands

Britain's most politically charged criminal trial of the year opens at the Old Bailey on Monday 27 April, as three men face a jury over a series of arson

labourheartlands.com

Been in Belmarsh since they were arrested!

 

[Basham Wonderland]

Yep........... be put to bed by "the party".

Talking of things that happened a while ago............

Trial started today I do believe.

THREE MEN TO FACE OLD BAILEY JURY OVER FIRES AT STARMER LINKED PROPERTIES - Labour Heartlands

Britain's most politically charged criminal trial of the year opens at the Old Bailey on Monday 27 April, as three men face a jury over a series of arson

labourheartlands.com

Been in Belmarsh since they were arrested!

I saw George Galloway peddling an absolutely mental conspiracy theory about this on YouTube which surely must be false, but is very interesting to think about. Something about these lads being gay male model "rent boys" involved in a sex scandal with Keir Starmer, and that the MSM is blocked from reporting on their trial??

I don't believe it for a second, but I am finding the whole thing fascinating and hilarious.

 

[Marked Ox]

Yep........... be put to bed by "the party".

Talking of things that happened a while ago............

Trial started today I do believe.

THREE MEN TO FACE OLD BAILEY JURY OVER FIRES AT STARMER LINKED PROPERTIES - Labour Heartlands

Britain's most politically charged criminal trial of the year opens at the Old Bailey on Monday 27 April, as three men face a jury over a series of arson

labourheartlands.com

Been in Belmarsh since they were arrested!

I guess they would be a flight risk.

 

[Essexyellows]

I saw George Galloway peddling an absolutely mental conspiracy theory about this on YouTube which surely must be false, but is very interesting to think about. Something about these lads being gay male model "rent boys" involved in a sex scandal with Keir Starmer, and that the MSM is blocked from reporting on their trial??

I don't believe it for a second, but I am finding the whole thing fascinating and hilarious.

MSM silent over Starmer arsonists trial - yet no special reporting restrictions

There are no special reporting restrictions beyond the usual that apply to any criminal case - so where's the MSM on Starmer arsonists?

www.thecanary.co

What’s on at the Old Bailey on April 29

Cases of interest at the Old Bailey on Wednesday Court 2 at 10am trial in the case of Roman Lavrynovych and another Ukarian and a Romanian accused of arson on properties related to Sir Kier Starmer…

old-bailey.com

"The silence around Starmer’s involvement screams volumes about the deeply unhealthy closeness and collusion of the state with the media that are notionally supposed to be scrutinising its actions and those of the people who represent it."

No smoke without fire as they say....

 

[SteMerritt]

MSM silent over Starmer arsonists trial - yet no special reporting restrictions

There are no special reporting restrictions beyond the usual that apply to any criminal case - so where's the MSM on Starmer arsonists?

www.thecanary.co

What’s on at the Old Bailey on April 29

Cases of interest at the Old Bailey on Wednesday Court 2 at 10am trial in the case of Roman Lavrynovych and another Ukarian and a Romanian accused of arson on properties related to Sir Kier Starmer…

old-bailey.com

"The silence around Starmer’s involvement screams volumes about the deeply unhealthy closeness and collusion of the state with the media that are notionally supposed to be scrutinising its actions and those of the people who represent it."

No smoke without fire as they say....

No conspiracy theorists without whinings of 'MSM' as they say...

 

[Essexyellows]

No conspiracy theorists without whinings of 'MSM' as they say...

Indeed so............. although trying to find any "MSM" (or otherwise - barring the conspiracy style sources) reporting of the ongoing trial at our most recognisable and high profile court is "sparse".