6 Sep
7:41pm, 6 Sep 2024
33,058 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Last I heard it had cost us £600m for no results... that's a valid reason just by itself, but I also believe that there's no way a Labour government would want to be associated with the shit show it had become and would go on to develop into when people were actually being hauled onto planes. Why would they want to take the rap for such a shit policy?
|
6 Sep
7:48pm, 6 Sep 2024
45,987 posts
|
SPR
I think the main thing about those arriving by boat is they have no other option if they want asylum in the UK. Labour were quite vocal about safe routes being part of the solution around 2 years ago IIRC. They quietly dropped that and when questioned about it pre election said it wasn't the answer. We know they would have been scared of the Tories using it to get votes but not heard anything about that post election.
|
6 Sep
9:35pm, 6 Sep 2024
17,762 posts
|
jda
Labour has a huge rock-solid majority, 5y to do exactly what they want with no repercussions. They can’t hide behind the excuse of being scared of the press or the tories or the red wall or whatever. Anything they say and do now is either a cast-iron commitment in their manifesto that they don’t dare to drop, or else it’s what they actually want to say and do.
|
6 Sep
9:41pm, 6 Sep 2024
207 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
Germany are looking at it but I heard on a radio interview that they have the change the constitution to make it work (I think something in there about returning illegal migrants to their home territory only). I can see it getting stuck in the sort of legal challenges we had in the UK.
|
6 Sep
9:45pm, 6 Sep 2024
6,370 posts
|
paulcook
From what I read, it was to be used as a processing centre and therefore potentially as SPR suggests, would be used similarly to create safe routes and prevent migrants from travelling half the world to then be turned back again. Though it primarily looks like depending where you read it, depends what details you read. |
|
6 Sep
9:58pm, 6 Sep 2024
6,372 posts
|
paulcook
And depending what details really would prove to be truthful, there'd be some irony if the party that brought us Brexit ended up paying the EU for an immigration centre.
|
|
7 Sep
1:13pm, 7 Sep 2024
33,059 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
ION: Dick Cheney will be voting for Kamala Harris. Dick Cheney! Hell has officially frozen over. |
7 Sep
4:31pm, 7 Sep 2024
11,602 posts
|
Fields
Proof how right wing the democrats are.
|
7 Sep
6:33pm, 7 Sep 2024
29,193 posts
|
richmac
Former PM seems to be in further hot water over business dealings with some uranium guy, his next wife is also involved
|
8 Sep
2:37pm, 8 Sep 2024
22,977 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Rewinding the discussion a few months. From Ben Ansell's substack discussing the polling in the US elections: benansell.substack.com "personally I don’t buy the kind of argument that Nate Silver is fond of making - that political betting markets, where people have ‘skin in the game’, will provide more insight. First because some of them favour Harris (PredictIt) and others Trump (Polymarket). But second, because most of the bettors don’t have much more information than you or I. And third, I don’t think political betting markets have been especially accurate in the past decade." |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Sep 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
