The fact is, no one that comes into power is interested in poking the wasps nest.
They’re either in too deep with lobbyists, billionaires, countries that are complicit in atrocities that it doesn’t inspire the general voter of these democracies.
I understand there’s many layers to these big topics but people will take their governments seriously when they see those elected individuals being proactive in making everyone’s lives better.
Starmer being a wet fish and toeing the line on some of these big ticket topics just does nothing for me. And whoever steps in afterwards will likely fall in-line too. Reform get in and fuck the country even more.
I’d usually agree, but I honestly think they might as well roll the dice and just do it. Starmer only got in because people FINALLY got utterly fed up with the Tories. At the next election he won’t have that in his favour, he’ll be the person large numbers really want to see the back of. Labour would be best off to get rid.
I don’t see who they’ve got that could replace him and be less hated. They all seem to be serpentine cowards who will just flop in the direction of the path of least resistance.
Wes Streeting is rather hateable, a statement in part based on my hatred for him lol, but I think he seems less soft, more decisive and has a bit more of an air of general competence and political nous. Not a high bar to pass when Starmer is the comparison, but I think he easily clears it.
Labour would fare better with him leading, he’d seem an improvement on Starmer. It certainly seems to me that he is the senior cabinet member or Labour figure who is the least tainted by this first year in government, and I get the distinct impression that he is being protected somewhat as a future leader.
One glaring issue would be that he has an almost nonexistent majority in Ilford North, and will be in serious danger at the next election. Not sure what the exact mechanism is, or if there is one but surely they’ll want to get him into a safer seat. If they can’t, then that has to be a big black mark against his name.
Unless something dramatic and almost unforeseen happens, Starmer will lead Labour to a fucking battering at the next election. Labour is far more reluctant to depose a leader, particularly one who is PM, than the Tories, but at this rate I just can’t see Starmer leading them into the next election. I think it is a matter of when, not if. But if I were to bet, I don’t think it’ll happen until the next election is two or fewer years away.
The Labour scheme is quite soft relatively speaking, and offers people with genuine claims safe access to the UK. These lawyers and charities don’t realise that they’re enabling a much subjectively worse alternative in Reform, there should be nothing controversial about sending people back to a safe country who have no asylum claim.
If Labour can crack the boats issue they can minimise Reform. I don’t see it happening though
If you do anything illegal you shouldn’t be able to challenge a decision imo but maybe thats just to simple thinking for something as complicated as this.
Well, I’m not contesting anything about whether the person should be deported back to France.
But, if an illegal immigrant doesn’t have recourse to the courts then they have no protection from the law which as a principle absolutely everyone should.
The only case I can think of historically of someone being refused the right to even take their case to court was American. In the 1850s there was an enslaved man called Dred Scott who with the help of abolition campaigners brought a case for his freedom before the US supreme court (the details were he’d been taken from a slave state into a state where slavery was outlawed and he contended stepping foot in a non slave state had made him free).
The Supreme Court ruled enslaved people had no recourse to courts and therefore it was impossible for them to challenge their enslavement in federal courts (I’m simplifying).
My point in citing the example (and I’m not equating migrants with enslaved people) is that not allowing someone recourse to the legal system makes them incredibly, and unfairly vulnerable.
Starmer’s already 10 days late recognising the Palestine State. Bet Trump passes on a message from his friends in Mossad and Starmer backs down. Trump will know that Starmer stands for nothing, possibly due to a lack of a spine.
