Keir starmer

I have a significant problem with the 10s of thousands of asylum seekers who have landed on our shores, bunged into rubbish accommodation at huge expense and forgotten

I have a significant problem with a government who is charged with controlling our borders and completely failing to do so.

I have a significant problem who has absolutely failed to carry out its sole job of processing the asylum seekers as they enter the country and return those that fail.

I have a significant problem with the government who lies about the effect that Rwanda policy will have on the asylum seekers.

I have a significant problem with the eye watering waste of taxpayers money this government has spaffed (to use that unpleasant turn of phrase) up the wall, day after day, week after week and year after year.

Of course it was the judge - but Starmer acted for the immigrants who brought the challenge to the then existing law.

Germanshepherdsmum

Visas will be granted to those we welcome. I have no problem with controlled immigration - those who come on work or study visas. I have a significant problem with people arriving on boats without permission, often without any ID, who may or may not possess a useful skill and be able to support themselves. Remember that those granted work visas have to supply evidence of income - there is no ‘diversion’ going on.

Seriously? You’re okay with legal migration to the UK continuing at the level of last year? The total was 685,000, of whom about 40,000 entered through irregular routes (April 2023-March 2024). One could accuse you of hyperfocus if that’s what you think.

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course it was the judge - but Starmer acted for the immigrants who brought the challenge to the then existing law.

He's a barrister, GSM, that's what barrister's do. Would you be happier, for example, if criminal law barristers didn't use the law to defend criminals?

I really think that you don't believe in the rule of Law, or equality under the law...

I don’t have a problem with legal migration given the requirements for proof of income for those coming to work, and proof of finances for those coming to study. Vast numbers of NHS staff and care workers come here on such visas, and universities rely heavily on the higher fees they charge to foreign students.

Believe what you like Maizie. The point is that he was instrumental in achieving a change in the law which made it impossible for the government to refuse to support immigrants. He was a human rights lawyer and he is not going to get tough on immigration.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t have a problem with legal migration given the requirements for proof of income for those coming to work, and proof of finances for those coming to study. Vast numbers of NHS staff and care workers come here on such visas, and universities rely heavily on the higher fees they charge to foreign students.

As long as you never complain about the country becoming too overcrowded, access to the NHS, lack of suitable housing and other infrastructure issues as the UK accepts a net population increase of over a million people every two years, I respect your position.

LizzieDrip

^Five times more often than Labour’ - so Labour are at it too^

GSM this is whataboutery. Take all the exception you like.

I didn't bring individuals into this, as I think the political threads are getting more and more divisive and life will have to go on after the election, but as I was directly challenged, I will defend my position.

As Lizziedrop points out, there are examples of whataboutery just a few posts up.

'Whatabout what KS did when he was a barrister acting for immigrant clients' is whataboutery too. To suggest that because he did his job by defending immigrants within the law of the land means that support for them 'is in his DNA' is desperate.

And to me there is no doubt that agreeing that 'Whatever, it is almost true' is acceptable is dishonest.

I rest my case.

That is a separate point. The S/M post in the O/P gives the clear impression that Starmer brought the measures in and is libellous.

As such, it would never had been posted if a quick fact check had been done.

(addressed to GSM)

Germanshepherdsmum

Chestnut

Whatever, it is partly true and that's bad enough. I am absolutely dreading a Labour government because under Starmer immigration will go through the roof. At least the Tories are making some attempt to control it (albeit weak and feeble) but soon there will be no control.

I agree Chestnut. It is not wholly untrue. The case resulted in the government being unable to refuse support for immigrants. It also reminds those who need reminding that Starmer was one of the human rights lawyers who act for illegal immigrants, and that it isn’t in his DNA to be tough with them. If we think things are bad now, wait and see how much worse they will be under his watch.

So it’s in his DNA to care for others and not just himself. Is that really such a bad thing?

It is controlled immigration Casdon, people coming here with permission because they have the proven financial ability to support themselves. I complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration, those arriving on boats whose identity and backstory may be wholly unknown and who are supported by each and every one of us who pays taxes.

Doodledog

*Whatever, it is partly true*

That sums up ‘Boris’ and his premiership, really, and that of the Tory party at this time. It’s one of the reasons why Bevsec’s ‘friend’ is likely to be disappointed when the election results are announced. People are fed up with the lack of integrity that that attitude shows, and thank goodness for that.

Hold on, the post was about Starmer , not Boris. Why not start a post about him. You can't deflect from what Starmer achieve here, simply by saying non of it wasn't true.
Some of it was.

Germanshepherdsmum

It is controlled immigration Casdon, people coming here with permission because they have the proven financial ability to support themselves. I complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration, those arriving on boats whose identity and backstory may be wholly unknown and who are supported by each and every one of us who pays taxes.

I do know the difference! As I said, if you’re comfortable with the UK accepting that number of legal migrants I won’t argue with you, although I think you’re misguided.

Starmer simply argued the law, that the U.K. government had signed up to.

They don’t all stay here Casdon. A large proportion are students.

He argued against the law whitewavemark.

Germanshepherdsmum

Believe what you like Maizie. The point is that he was instrumental in achieving a change in the law which made it impossible for the government to refuse to support immigrants. He was a human rights lawyer and he is not going to get tough on immigration.

Judges do not change the law. Only Parliament can do that, as you well know. Judges interpret the law as set out by Parliament.

You are on an 'enemies of the people' trajectory here, I feel.

Chestnut

Whatever, it is partly true and that's bad enough. I am absolutely dreading a Labour government because under Starmer immigration will go through the roof. At least the Tories are making some attempt to control it (albeit weak and feeble) but soon there will be no control.

You have zero evidence to support this and immigration of both types it’s at its highest for the last 24 years.

The very wording of the social media post is of the most basic level and clearly gutter sniping. Is the OP a teenager perhaps? An inquisitive mind and the ability to research (by that I mean one click of the mouse) appear somewhat lacking. Especially given the slavish desire to share something before a informed opinion has been made.

I would say this in the defence of any MP or party by the way. Although I tend not to read obvious trash myself, I certainly wouldn't share it if I did.

Yet another Starmer post, with little or no substance and evidence!

Starmer has not been PM, at least wait and see, IF he becomes PM, before bashing all his policies.

We “bash” the last few story PMs because of the actions they’ve taken, not based on previous Tory govts, not based on what MIGHT happen IF they become PM!

Germanshepherdsmum

They don’t all stay here Casdon. A large proportion are students.

It is net migration. Replacing students with the year before’s students who have gone home is not net migration.

So it’s in his DNA to care for others and not just himself. Is that really such a bad thing

Sadly Maybe I think, for Conservatives it is a bad thing. Their proposed ‘welfare reforms’ are a prime example - demonising and causing financial harm to the most vulnerable in our society.

I, for one, don’t want a ‘tax break’ on my pension (which would amount to approx £29 per year BTW) that is funded on the backs of the sick, disabled and vulnerable.

Not in my name: not in my country!

Well, by not allowing in students' dependents the tories have managed to stem the flow of student visas 😆

Universities are a bit peeved at losing some income, though...

The thoughts of yet another Reform candidate
‘A candidate standing for the right-wing political party Reform UK in the British general election next month said he would “slaughter” migrants who arrive in the country on small boats and “have their family taken out,” The Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

It said Leslie Lilley, who is standing in the constituency of Southend East and Rochford, made the threats four years ago on the Facebook account he is now using to run his election campaign. In reaction to reports of a small boat arriving in Dover in June 2020 he said: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”

During the same month, the 70-year-old also complained about “more scum entering the UK” and said: “I hope your family get robbed, beaten or attacked.”
Can’t help but feel that many Reform supporters share that view.