Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[RT4038]

Y

You can kill the human trafficking gangs in an instant by setting up safe routes from various locations and countries. If you're genuinely wanting an end to the trafficking then you should be shouting from the rooftops for this.

Genuinely want to stop the trafficking, and genuinely don't want to be encouraging the people to come here even more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are other ways of deterring the small boats, many aren't that convinced that moving a few thousand people a year to Rwanda was actually going to put that many off.

Anyway deals with Albania are likely to have a bigger impact (i.e. any Albanian can be sent back home) for less money.

Likewise an international deal (say with the EU and the US) to house people locally to where they are displaced, where they can claim asylum from, would likely be cheaper still. In part as you wouldn't have to deport anyone, but also as you'd have lower costs and whilst you are likely to have to deal with more people overall (many are being helped anyway through aid projects) those costs are likely to be split between many more people.

Well the point of my post wasn't to re-open the debate about how you deal with small boats etc., but simply to point out that support for the principle of placing illegal immigrants to other countries does not mean you're being spiteful and prejudiced.

But having said that, I'm not sure how realistic your idea of an international deal is. The USA and many EU countries are themselves struggling with numbers of asylum seekers that many in those countries feel they can't cope with - to the point that (illegal) immigration has become a hot political topic in quite a few countries. So I can't see the USA/EU countries them agreeing to an international deal that means they take more people, just in order to help the UK solve its small boats problem. It's not that it's not desirable: I think some kind of international agreement to distribute asylum seekers fairly between countries would be a very good thing. I just can't see that it's in the UK's power to bring it about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2023 ==

You can kill the human trafficking gangs in an instant by setting up safe routes from various locations and countries. If you're genuinely wanting an end to the trafficking then you should be shouting from the rooftops for this.

Yes, in principle, safe routes would be a great idea. But in practice, I have yet to see any serious suggestion for any workable proposal for safe routes that wouldn't (a) simply move the trafficking problem, so people instead get trafficked (dangerously) to wherever the safe routes start from, and (b) be likely to massively increase the numbers claiming asylum, so that we simply make the problem of having numbers that we can't cope with even worse, leading to more suffering and backlog as people wait for claims to be processed.

 

[RT4038]

Well the point of my post wasn't to re-open the debate about how you deal with small boats etc., but simply to point out that support for the principle of placing illegal immigrants to other countries does not mean you're being spiteful and prejudiced.

But having said that, I'm not sure how realistic your idea of an international deal is. The USA and many EU countries are themselves struggling with numbers of asylum seekers that many in those countries feel they can't cope with - to the point that (illegal) immigration has become a hot political topic in quite a few countries. So I can't see the USA/EU countries them agreeing to an international deal that means they take more people, just in order to help the UK solve its small boats problem. It's not that it's not desirable: I think some kind of international agreement to distribute asylum seekers fairly between countries would be a very good thing. I just can't see that it's in the UK's power to bring it about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2023 ==



Yes, in principle, safe routes would be a great idea. But in practice, I have yet to see any serious suggestion for any workable proposal for safe routes that wouldn't (a) simply move the trafficking problem, so people instead get trafficked (dangerously) to wherever the safe routes start from, and (b) be likely to massively increase the numbers claiming asylum, so that we simply make the problem of having numbers that we can't cope with even worse, leading to more suffering and backlog as people wait for claims to be processed.

Of course, the root of much of this is the wealth imbalances between the nations - those who advocate cutting foreign aid please note. Either we give the wealth voluntarily (on our terms and influence) or the good citizens of there will come for a share here. All interrelated.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do reform actually want PR?

Yes they do: To quote from their policy document (which I think is for all practical purposes their manifesto):

Reform the voting system: To make it more representative. Smaller parties mean more choice, new ideas, and better debate. Proportional representation is essential

 

[Purple Train]

Well the point of my post wasn't to re-open the debate about how you deal with small boats etc., but simply to point out that support for the principle of placing illegal immigrants to other countries does not mean you're being spiteful and prejudiced.

Where did you get that from? My original statement (which I accept was badly-worded and hyperbolic) was in relation to the designation of Rwanda - a country with a questionable human rights record and a decidedly questionable record in relation to immigrants - as a "safe" third country. I still object to the idea of operating a similar scheme with countries with a better record, but the designation of Rwanda was what I took severe objection to.

 

[Howardh]

If the Tories DID go for a snap election, based on one topic "Stop The Boats/Laws/EHCR/Lords" etc and got completely thrashed at the ballot box, then couldn't the next government conclude that immigration really isn't such a big issue after all, and begin to allow us back our freedom of movement with the EU?

 

[Enthusiast]

Y

You can kill the human trafficking gangs in an instant by setting up safe routes from various locations and countries. If you're genuinely wanting an end to the trafficking then you should be shouting from the rooftops for this.

Indeed. And you can stop the dealing in illegal substances by legalising all illegal substances.

 

[Bayum]

We also have the principle that Parliament cannot bind its future selves. If you dislike the actions of this government, vote them out and the new lot can reverse any laws passed.

But Sunak can salt the earth braised for HS2 so nothing can be done with it even if the law is repealed?

 

[JamesT]

But Sunak can salt the earth braised for HS2 so nothing can be done with it even if the law is repealed?

I don't believe there's anything irreversible about Sunak's cancelling of HS2. Even if the land is sold off, (which doesn't appear to be occurring,) the next government can pass a bill to compulsory purchase the land again.

 

[Gloster]

I don't believe there's anything irreversible about Sunak's cancelling of HS2. Even if the land is sold off, (which doesn't appear to be occurring,) the next government can pass a bill to compulsory purchase the land again.

It doesn’t prevent Labour bringing the northern part of HS2 back to life, but it almost certainly makes it more expensive. A party that had the country’s interests at heart and was taking the the long view would not hamstring the next government by destroying much of what had already been done (the purchases of property) in order to make a quick buck. Of course, it is all perfectly logical if the Conservatives think that they will lose the next election and want to multiply the problems that the new government will face, even if it puts two fingers up to the future of the country

 

[3141]

If the Tories DID go for a snap election, based on one topic "Stop The Boats/Laws/EHCR/Lords" etc and got completely thrashed at the ballot box, then couldn't the next government conclude that immigration really isn't such a big issue after all, and begin to allow us back our freedom of movement with the EU?

I don't get that. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the Conservatives would fight the election solely on that issue, and the other parties would fight on other issues which are important and the Conservatives wouldn't want to be saying they weren't interested in those when other parties, and many voters, considered they matter. Elections are always about more than one issue, except occasionally in a particular constituency when there's an issue that's sufficiently important locally to override everything else.

Secondly, I think if the Conservatives did fight on just "Stop the boats..." etc., and got trounced, most people would understand that there were many other reasons why they had lost going back over the past thirteen years, and it wouldn't be logical to conclude that immigration isn't such a big issue, partly because....

Thirdly, it is a big issue. It played a part in many people's decision to vote to leave the EU. They may have confused legal and illegal immigration, but they were against it, and still are. If they didn't like Poles taking over their town - as it seemed to them - they're unlikely to look any more favourably on Afghans or people from sub-Saharan Africa. In any case, there are issues about our increasing population and the additional homes and other facilities that requires.

Finally, if your scenario came to pass, how would that cause the next government to "begin to allow us our freedom of movement with the EU"? That matter is principally for the EU to decide, and they would want something from us in return - maybe quite a lot.

 

[Howardh]

I don't get that. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the Conservatives would fight the election solely on that issue, and the other parties would fight on other issues which are important and the Conservatives wouldn't want to be saying they weren't interested in those when other parties, and many voters, considered they matter. Elections are always about more than one issue, except occasionally in a particular constituency when there's an issue that's sufficiently important locally to override everything else.

Secondly, I think if the Conservatives did fight on just "Stop the boats..." etc., and got trounced, most people would understand that there were many other reasons why they had lost going back over the past thirteen years, and it wouldn't be logical to conclude that immigration isn't such a big issue, partly because....

Thirdly, it is a big issue. It played a part in many people's decision to vote to leave the EU. They may have confused legal and illegal immigration, but they were against it, and still are. If they didn't like Poles taking over their town - as it seemed to them - they're unlikely to look any more favourably on Afghans or people from sub-Saharan Africa. In any case, there are issues about our increasing population and the additional homes and other facilities that requires.

Finally, if your scenario came to pass, how would that cause the next government to "begin to allow us our freedom of movement with the EU"? That matter is principally for the EU to decide, and they would want something from us in return - maybe quite a lot.

Unless we ask them, we don't know if that's true or not.

As for the second emboldened point, if we were allowed the freedom to move to the EU/EEA as we had, many pensioners may well move to sunnier climes thus freeing up housing. They still can of course, but there are many obstacles in the way now, including minimum income, restrictions on health and difficulty in getting the UK pension abroad (I believe).

 

[najaB]

Finally, if your scenario came to pass, how would that cause the next government to "begin to allow us our freedom of movement with the EU"? That matter is principally for the EU to decide, and they would want something from us in return - maybe quite a lot.

By definition, they would expect to allow free movement of labour from the EU to the UK. I don't imagine they would need a lot more than that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the Tories DID go for a snap election, based on one topic "Stop The Boats/Laws/EHCR/Lords" etc and got completely thrashed at the ballot box, then couldn't the next government conclude that immigration really isn't such a big issue after all, and begin to allow us back our freedom of movement with the EU?

I'm pretty sure that any Government that tried that would very quickly regret it come the following election. Immigration is not such a big issue at the moment in part because cost of living etc. has swamped everything else in importance for many people, and in part because we've left the EU and removed FOM and no-one (outside a few diehard Remainers) seriously believes that we are going to go back on that in the foreseeable future, therefore it's not something that anyone is going to worry about. But if any Government did seriously start talking about bringing back FOM or EU membership, that would very quickly change, FOM would become a major issue again, and you'd very quickly find large numbers of people swapping their votes to 'Keep Brexit done'.

 

[nw1]

I'm pretty sure that any Government that tried that would very quickly regret it come the following election. Immigration is not such a big issue at the moment in part because cost of living etc. has swamped everything else in importance for many people, and in part because we've left the EU and removed FOM and no-one (outside a few diehard Remainers) seriously believes that we are going to go back on that in the foreseeable future, therefore it's not something that anyone is going to worry about that. But if any Government did seriously start talking about bringing back FOM or EU membership, that would very quickly change, and you'd very quickly find large numbers of people voting to 'Keep Brexit done'.

I'm not sure about that. We're not all anti-FoM, it's very much a divided issue and I suspect support for it is split around 50/50. And as @Howardh suggests, there is no clear lead for maintaining Brexit, if anything it's the reverse.

I agree it would be not a great idea to mention it or focus on it right now (too risky for the upcoming election, and there are more urgent priorities right now - as you say).

However, give it a few years and I suspect the generations that valued FoM will start to comprise a greater proportion of the electorate. I also suspect the 2010s/2020s anti-immigration fashion will go out of vogue. What was the birth year when the lead vote in the referendum flipped from Brexit to Remain? I think it was around 1970, and a fair proportion of the electorate - and increasing by the year - were born from 1970 onwards. Also I've heard of a fair few "regretful Brexiters" but not many "regretful Remainers", so if there is a trend since the referendum, I suspect it's in the Remain / FoM direction. Both by demographic shift and by realising Brexit hasn't propelled us to the sunlit uplands.

I also suspect there is a lot more anger and resentment about removing FoM and the single market than you think, partly because some of us want to move, partly because it introduces additional red tape, partly because they consider it a silly and pointless Tory vanity project, and partly because of the regressive and backward "anti-freedom" overtones that removing them has. For example, in my case, I don't know a single person, neither friend nor work colleague, who supports Brexit strongly enough to get upset if FoM came back. I do however know a fair few people who think the reverse.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed. And you can stop the dealing in illegal substances by legalising all illegal substances.

Yep. And by that logic, you can stop anyone from being convicted of - say - murder or burglary by legalising murder and burglary. (Not recommended btw)

 

[Howardh]

I'm pretty sure that any Government that tried that would very quickly regret it come the following election. Immigration is not such a big issue at the moment in part because cost of living etc. has swamped everything else in importance for many people, and in part because we've left the EU and removed FOM and no-one (outside a few diehard Remainers) seriously believes that we are going to go back on that in the foreseeable future, therefore it's not something that anyone is going to worry about. But if any Government did seriously start talking about bringing back FOM or EU membership, that would very quickly change, FOM would become a major issue again, and you'd very quickly find large numbers of people swapping their votes to 'Keep Brexit done'.

We don't know that unless we ask, and the question was "do we leave the EU" not "do we stop freedom of movement" ie. other factors were at play such as the money we gave the EU (remember the "bus"??). We do have polls on the issue like we have on voting intentions, and here's one which is a poll-of-polls; (don't know's excluded)

https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls-uk-eu/ which suggests strongly that there's a majority in favour of rejoining including freedom of movement. Would be nice to think a democratically elected government would act on the people's wishes!!

Pollster	Fieldwork Dates	Question Type	In EU	Out EU
Poll of Polls	-	-	58	42
Deltapoll	27-30.10.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	2-3.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	60	40
Deltapoll	3-6.10.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	9-10.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	60	40
Deltapoll	10-13.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	16-17.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	58	42

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It doesn’t prevent Labour bringing the northern part of HS2 back to life, but it almost certainly makes it more expensive. A party that had the country’s interests at heart and was taking the the long view would not hamstring the next government by destroying much of what had already been done (the purchases of property) in order to make a quick buck.

I kinda agree. And it is quite a relief that Rishi Sunak's plan to sell off the land for HS2 doesn't appear to be happening, so it should be easy for the next (Labour) Government to keep that land safeguarded.

What I think is going to make it very hard for Labour to reinstate HS2 to Manchester is all the cash, supposedly from HS2, that the Tories have earmarked for other transport projects. I'd expect it to be politically virtually impossible for Labour to cancel those (and why would we want to? Many of them appear to be good projects), and that raises hard questions about where the cash to build HS2 as well can come from.

 

[Howardh]

We don't know that unless we ask, and the question was "do we leave the EU" not "do we stop freedom of movement" ie. other factors were at play such as the money we gave the EU (remember the "bus"??). We do have polls on the issue like we have on voting intentions, and here's one which is a poll-of-polls;

https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls-uk-eu/ which suggests strongly that there's a majority in favour of rejoining including freedom of movement. Note the "don't knows" have been excluded. Would be nice to think a democratically elected government would act on the people's wishes!!

Pollster	Fieldwork Dates	Question Type	In EU	Out EU
Poll of Polls	-	-	58	42
Deltapoll	27-30.10.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	2-3.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	60	40
Deltapoll	3-6.10.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	9-10.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	60	40
Deltapoll	10-13.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	56	44
Omnisis/WeThink	16-17.11.23	Rejoin/Stay Out	58	42

 

[Busaholic]

What I think is going to make it very hard for Labour to reinstate HS2 to Manchester is all the cash, supposedly from HS2, that the Tories have earmarked for other transport projects. I'd expect it to be politically virtually impossible for Labour to cancel those, and that raises hard questions about where the cash to build HS2 as well can come from.

I think 'supposedly' is the key word there. After all, if you're cancelling something on the grounds that the country can no longer afford it the statement that you're just going to transfer it all to other, more minor projects instead lacks logic! In any case, I scarcely believe a word of it and the majority of those schemes will never get underway. Having got this far (not very in terms of distance but aeons in terms of time and money just get on with it before the workforces disappear.

 

[nw1]

Indeed. And you can stop the dealing in illegal substances by legalising all illegal substances.

I think there is a case for legalising selected Class B and C drugs. For one thing, you make the dealing safe rather than leaving it in the hands of crime-lords.

A good number of US states have legalised cannabis with regulated sales, and the US is scarcely known for being a raving far-left lawless country so they must be on to something.

 

[najaB]

I think there is a case for legalising selected Class B and C drugs. For one thing, you make the dealing safe rather than leaving it in the hands of crime-lords.

And for those that you don't want to include in full legalisation, decriminalisation of possession of small amounts. Treat drug addiction as a healthcare rather than criminal matter.

 

[bspahh]

I kinda agree. And it is quite a relief that Rishi Sunak's plan to sell off the land for HS2 doesn't appear to be happening, so it should be easy for the next (Labour) Government to keep that land safeguarded.

What I think is going to make it very hard for Labour to reinstate HS2 to Manchester is all the cash, supposedly from HS2, that the Tories have earmarked for other transport projects. I'd expect it to be politically virtually impossible for Labour to cancel those (and why would we want to? Many of them appear to be good projects), and that raises hard questions about where the cash to build HS2 as well can come from.

When the Tory replacement projects have been targeted at Tory marginal areas, they might be easier for a Labour government to delay/cancel.

The Episode 6 of the Green Signals podcast with Richard Bowker, Nigel Harris and Andrew Naughton and said that the incremental cost of HS2 phase 2a is pocket money if you score the benefits of stopping with phase 1, to phase 1 plus phase 2a.

Reflecting on our recent appearance at the Transport Select Committee, in this episode of Green Signals we are delighted to be joined by Andrew McNaughton. Not only did Andrew give evidence with us at the TSC recently, he was HS2’s Technical Director and one of its first two employees back in 2009.
There is no-one better to talk to in detail about why HS2 was designed the way it was (and, perhaps more importantly, why it wasn’t designed differently)!
Andrew brilliantly describes reasons for HS2’s alignment, speed and capacity. But the really important discussion is that we all agree just how vital it is to fight for Phase 2A to go ahead, for a whole host of reasons that you really do need to hear. Without it, we have all kinds of problems ahead.
We also explain in this episode what a White Paper is and what a select committee does.
Aside from HS2, Richard has a bit of a Victor Meldrew moment while giving his views on the King’s Speech. To say he was underwhelmed by the announcement of a Draft Bill for GBR is a bit of an understatement…

 

[edwin_m]

I think 'supposedly' is the key word there. After all, if you're cancelling something on the grounds that the country can no longer afford it the statement that you're just going to transfer it all to other, more minor projects instead lacks logic! In any case, I scarcely believe a word of it and the majority of those schemes will never get underway. Having got this far (not very in terms of distance but aeons in terms of time and money just get on with it before the workforces disappear.

It's something of a trap for Labour, who would have to stand up and say all these other things aren't going to happen. Not really to do with HS2, most of them wouldn't happen if the Tories stayed in power, just like levelling up.

 

[Enthusiast]

By definition, they would expect to allow free movement of labour from the EU to the UK. I don't imagine they would need a lot more than that.

What definition? Article 21 confers on every EU citizen the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It says nothing about labour.

I think there is a case for legalising selected Class B and C drugs. For one thing, you make the dealing safe rather than leaving it in the hands of crime-lords.

A good number of US states have legalised cannabis with regulated sales, and the US is scarcely known for being a raving far-left lawless country so they must be on to something.

And for those that you don't want to include in full legalisation, decriminalisation of possession of small amounts. Treat drug addiction as a healthcare rather than criminal matter.

I think you're both rather missing my point. My reaction was to "You can kill the human trafficking gangs in an instant by setting up safe routes from various locations and countries." The problem that needs solving is not of trafficking but of people arriving in the UK. Setting up safe routes doesn't solve the problem of people arriving. And in any case, unless a completely "open border" is proposed, there would have to be limits. Once the numbers allowed via the safe routes have been reached, potential migrants would turn to traffickers.

 

[najaB]

What definition? Article 21 confers on every EU citizen the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It says nothing about labour.

Freedom of movement is specifically stated to be the freedom of movement of workers. All the other provisions are designed to facilitate that movement of workers.

From the Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

TITLE IV

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 1

WORKERS

Article 45

(ex Article 39 TEC)

1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.

2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

(a)

to accept offers of employment actually made;

(b)

to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;

(c)

to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;

(d)

to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.

4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

 

[Purple Train]

What I think is going to make it very hard for Labour to reinstate HS2 to Manchester is all the cash, supposedly from HS2, that the Tories have earmarked for other transport projects. I'd expect it to be politically virtually impossible for Labour to cancel those (and why would we want to? Many of them appear to be good projects), and that raises hard questions about where the cash to build HS2 as well can come from.

What good projects, the potholes fund?

The Network North plan was drawn up in charcoal crayon on the back of a Harrods receipt. Given how little of it has any chance of happening even were Sunak to have five more years (except for the "proposed" schemes which have already happened), I wouldn't call it a good plan.

 

[Enthusiast]

Freedom of movement is specifically stated to be the freedom of movement of workers. All the other provisions are designed to facilitate that movement of workers.

From the Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Depends what you read:

Movement and residence

Information on EU citizens' right to free movement, funding and support.

commission.europa.eu

That document (from the EU Commission) also provides details of family members entitled to accompany EU citizens in other EU member states. Among them are spouses and dependent children under 21. It says nothing about them having to be workers.

Then there's Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:

Article 45 - Freedom of movement and of residence

fra.europa.eu

1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

In practice, with one or two very limited exceptions, freedom of movement across the EU exists for everybody, man woman and child.

 

[najaB]

Then there's Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

…of EU citizens. Which we wouldn't be.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you're both rather missing my point. My reaction was to "You can kill the human trafficking gangs in an instant by setting up safe routes from various locations and countries." The problem that needs solving is not of trafficking but of people arriving in the UK. Setting up safe routes doesn't solve the problem of people arriving. And in any case, unless a completely "open border" is proposed, there would have to be limits. Once the numbers allowed via the safe routes have been reached, potential migrants would turn to traffickers.

The government also thinks this, but it chooses to cloak its views in concern about the traffickers and the risks of small boats, which they hope gives it some sort of mask of respectability.