UK Politics General Discussion

[jon81uk]

HS2 could have been made much cheaper if they didn't insist on it going quite so fast. If it was a little bit slower it could have been more curvy to skirt around spans of water, bat populations, hills etc instead of having to build tunnels and bridges and whatnot. But they insisted on the extra bit of speed as it was always a vanity project and a white elephant. The extra bit of speed gives you hardly any benefit as the distance travelled in this country is so small relative to the likes of China and France.

HS2 could have been cheaper if they had left it out in the open instead of the NIMBYs wanting it covered and in tunnels to protect the views. They could have cut the number of tunnels anyway and just run at ground level in some sections.

As for the boat people. Kier's not exactly smashing the gangs is he? 25,000 people have entered by boat so far this year making it a record (approx the population of somewhere like Harrogate). The truth is, they want the immigration. He's done nothing of any substance to stop it. All his initiatives are total rubbish that won't make a dent in the numbers. Whether you like it or not, it's a big issue for voters and if he doesn't sort it you'll end up with a Reform like party eventually.

The rise in the number of crossings is due to the better weather. Simplest way to stop them would be to have an asylum processing centre in France.

 

[BarryZola]

The rise in the number of crossings is due to the better weather. Simplest way to stop them would be to have an asylum processing centre in France.

That probably wouldn't work either, as they know if they come here they will have their accommodation paid for and will be able to go out to work for Just Eat etc with false identification or in some back-street operation, whilst having a weekly allowance from the government on top. The way to stop them is to make coming here not any more advantageous than other countries (less pull factors, as they say).

In the short term, personally I would sack the hotel accommodation off and we would build army barrack style accommodation with dorm rooms whilst they wait for a decision on their asylum claims. Perfectly adequate but basic and cheaper for the tax-payer long-term. When we get to the point where the numbers are lower these places can be re-purposed into Cat D (open) prisons so they're still value for money for the tax-payer. If you're fleeing a country where your life is in imminent danger you'll be glad of a safe place to stay with a roof over your head and food provided. Obviously have provision for exercise and other pass-times. These people wouldn't be free to just go out and get lost in society and work illegally.

Also, in general, build more prisons so we can start handing out proper sentences again. People know that they can come here and if they get into criminality the sentences are pathetic. Let's have a bit of deterrent.

Have some way of limiting (not denying completely) benefits etc until successful asylum applicants have paid into the system for a certain number of years.

People/families who have been granted asylum will generally not jump the queue for housing in front of anyone who has already been on the waiting list before them, regardless if they've got 4 children or not.

Introduce I.D cards for everyone in Britain. I've got nothing to hide, so bring it on. If you're a genuine citizen the government will already know everything about you anyway.

Literally have teams of people paid and stationed along French beaches to destroy the boats before or as they get into the water. We know the general areas where they travel from and to across the channel. All the hundreds of millions of pounds we've given to the French over the years has seemingly done nothing to stop it.

Longer term I would like to explore being able to ban anyone from ever being granted asylum here if they enter illegally/irregularly. I know this is problematic due to our relationship with the ECHR. This would be alongside setting up processing centres abroad so people can open a claim in a fair and legal way from other countries, but there would be a cap. When people do get granted asylum, if they require social housing they should be distributed throughout the UK instead of all being gathered in the major towns and cities. This is better for social cohesion.

Another option is to bring something like the Rwanda plan into action if you can get it through the courts. Yes, it seems expensive but once the deterrent is known about and understood by those who would choose to come here illegally, the numbers will reduce and so will the cost. Starmer never wanted to give it a chance to work. Nothing else seems to work so why wouldn't he give it a try?

Just some ideas. Enough for you to get stuck into me about there?

 

[jon81uk]

That probably wouldn't work either, as they know if they come here they will have their accommodation paid for and will be able to go out to work for Just Eat etc with false identification or in some back-street operation, whilst having a weekly allowance from the government on top. The way to stop them is to make coming here not any more advantageous than other countries (less pull factors, as they say).

I don't think we give more than any other country, looks very similar to what France offers in terms of a living allowance.

In the short term, personally I would sack the hotel accommodation off and we would build army barrack style accommodation with dorm rooms whilst they wait for a decision on their asylum claims. Perfectly adequate but basic and cheaper for the tax-payer long-term

Thats still a long-term thing as need to build them first. All the short-term ideas (remeber the housing them on a boat one) have gone wrong. Better long-term plan is to actually process the applications so we don't need to house them in temporary accommodation. If we can process the application within weeks not months/years then won't need the hotels as exisiting asylum centres would be OK. Moving the processing overseas would help with this too.

Also, in general, build more prisons so we can start handing out proper sentences again. People know that they can come here and if they get into criminality the sentences are pathetic. Let's have a bit of deterrent.

Prison isn't a deterrent, plenty of studies show this. We need rehabilitation instead, also better mental health and homeless support would go a lot further than just locking people up.

Literally have teams of people paid and stationed along French beaches to destroy the boats before or as they get into the water. We know the general areas where they travel from and to across the channel. All the hundreds of millions of pounds we've given to the French over the years has seemingly done nothing to stop it.

France have agreed to start doing this a little more at least. Also what millions of pounds given to the French? But again a processing centre in France is the better solution rather than trying to force French police to do something.

 

[BarryZola]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64916446 £500 million for a start.

As for the 'speeding up the asylum application decisions' thing. Interestingly enough, during a similar debate on here several months ago someone made an off the cuff remark that someone should look at applying to join the team doing that if they're so bothered (or something like that). So, I actually looked into it a bit further and applied for a job as a decision maker! I'm 100% serious. So, I applied and did the initial online test and they were supposed to get back to me with the next part of the application. Since then, all they've done every couple of weeks is send me an email saying that they're currently reviewing my application and they'll be in touch soon. I applied on the 13th of May. They're obviously not in that much of a rush if they can't make a simple decision on whether to progress an initial application to the next level after two and a half months. It's literally exactly the same message every single time every fortnight. It's easy to just send a rejection message if they deem me not good enough, but they just don't seem to be dealing with it at all, and I'm not bothered enough to chase it up.

 

[Slugjc]

HS2 could have been made much cheaper if they didn't insist on it going quite so fast. If it was a little bit slower it could have been more curvy to skirt around spans of water, bat populations, hills etc instead of having to build tunnels and bridges and whatnot. But they insisted on the extra bit of speed as it was always a vanity project and a white elephant. The extra bit of speed gives you hardly any benefit as the distance travelled in this country is so small relative to the likes of China and France. Even Derrick could have looked at both of those options and decided on the slower trains.

HS2 is wasted on the south of the country.

The money would have been far better actually improving the east and west coast lines. It was laughable that the new line would shave a whopping 20mins from Leeds to London. Well worth the tax payers billions.

It would also have been better spent actually building a decent rail connection between the cities in the north. Getting from Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool is absolute graft. Slow times following Victorian routes. Rolling stock is old and outdated. That's if they are bothering to run at all.

As for the boats.

No one knows what to do. Keir Starmer hasn't dealt with issue. When you ask those who shout "stop the boats" they have even less of plan. Farage only solution is putting on a little sailor suit and pointing at them.

 

[jon81uk]

The money would have been far better actually improving the east and west coast lines. It was laughable that the new line would shave a whopping 20mins from Leeds to London. Well worth the tax payers billions.

It would also have been better spent actually building a decent rail connection between the cities in the north. Getting from Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool is absolute graft. Slow times following Victorian routes. Rolling stock is old and outdated. That's if they are bothering to run at all.

We need both, the west coast mainline needs the capacity so the additional tracks from London to Birmingham and up to Manchester is needed. But also east-west rail is much needed too.

I say stop spending on motorways and invest more in trains. Maintain local roads better but for city to city transport we need more capacity on some train routes and as you say, new train routes as well.

 

[Benzin]

Selling HS2 as a "quicker" option rather than a "reducing the amount of trains on local lines freeing them up for more local services" is just typical government.

 

[Matt.GC]

Why all the surprise at the lack of competence behind the Online Safety bill? Insert some heated politics into it and it's going to be badly designed. I thought we'd be used to how it works by now?

"Save the children from porn" sounds noble, to hell with the details. "Tax Amazon warehouses to save the high street" (futile) does as well, until you consider the fact that it actually hits the retailers with less deeper pockets than Amazon the hardest.

HS2 doesn't benefit "The South". Rail is as **** in the west as it is in the North. Wales is even worse. HS2 goes nowhere near either of them.

 

[Smiley]

Why all the surprise at the lack of competence behind the Online Safety bill? Insert some heated politics into it and it's going to be badly designed. I thought we'd be used to how it works by now? "Save the children from porn" sounds noble, to hell with the details

Not sure about the heated politics - just a bill designed by people that have no idea of the real world. It's a missed opportunity that I'm sure will have legal ramifications (what about playing an 18+ title on your PS/Xbox).

I firmly believe that it will create more harm than it does good.

 

[Benzin]

Not sure about the heated politics - just a bill designed by people that have no idea of the real world. It's a missed opportunity that I'm sure will have legal ramifications (what about playing an 18+ title on your PS/Xbox).

Think Microsoft have already mentioned adding in age verification for the account(s) on the console to be compliant.

 

[East Coast Mariner]

Yes, this is the one.

It was actually originally proposed by the Tories, but Labour just kept it.

I thought so, I was just surprised that they voted against it this time. Then again, politicians' principles do seem to change with the wind! It's very interesting to look at who didn't bother voting at all...

Anyway, my thoughts on the Act... It covers so much ground that most people will probably agree with some of it and disagree with other bits (which is probably the point). The offences described as "illegal content" are of course completely heinous, and should be cracked down upon anyway. I'd also agree that what the Act calls "new offences" (that came into effect 31 January 2024), such as epilepsy trolling, are legitimate and overdue.

Regarding the age checks for legal content, anyone can see the problem with that coming a mile off.

I am most alarmed, though, by the fact the Act concerns itself with "misinformation":

Category 1 services will also need to remove certain types of mis- and disinformation if they are prohibited in their terms of services.

How the Act tackles Misinformation and Disinformation

Misinformation is being unintentionally wrong, whereas disinformation is being deliberately wrong, i.e. lying. Well, I agree with them about deliberate lies, but the source of those is often politicians! Are they going to be prosecuted for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or "Safe and Effective"? The Government is not qualified to be an arbiter of truth. In recent years I have found it far more beneficial to listen to alternative media rather than anything mainstream. What they call "misinformation" is often simply an inconvenient truth. I say this: No theory, idea or opinion should ever be censored.

When they say Category 1, they define that as "Large user-to-user services", so I assume they mean Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. And that is what I fear this is really about. The Government has lied to us, in the most serious fashion, and they know we're onto them. When they decide to pull their next stunt, our only real power is non-belief, non-compliance and talking to each other about it. And this Act could take away that last one. Remember, free speech is not just the ability to say what you like, it's also the right to hear other people's arguments. With that in mind, I prefer to keep deciding what is "misinformation" for myself.

Combined with digital ID (Britcard), social credit scores and Central Bank Digital Currency, they are building a digital cage around us. It doesn't matter whether it's Labour, Tories or anyone else - these are global schemes being put in place by globalist puppets. Unless we stand up to them, freedom may soon become a thing of the past.

 

[Benzin]

The problem is that the social media companies aren't really doing anything to combat certain nastier aspects of the Internet. And the spreading of misinformation is a giant part of that. Newspapers also do it but something posted online can travel the world, enrage a number of elements and be back before anyone has noticed. That mocked up Metropolitan "Thought" Police sign was a good recent example.

Then people wonder why measles cases are rising.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And that has truly been forgotten by those who are claiming to protect such freedoms. Like this morning I saw an ableist post on Threads, the consequences of which were the person being called out and some (oftentimes strange) attempts to inform the person's workplace (because these people never lock down their information).

Sure you CAN post online enticing people to attack hotels with asylum seekers in. Just don't be shocked when the police come knocking the next day.

 

[Matt N]

It would seem that the bill is already restricting materials such as social media posts about Palestine, support forums regarding topics such as sexual assault, transgender issues and addiction therapy, and even websites about perfectly non-explicit material such as movies: https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-c...laws-are-already-disaster-internet-censorship

The more I see about this legislation, the more against the manner of its implementation I am. I don’t deny that the intent is noble, but the implementation is really, really clumsy, and I don’t think it’s the answer to the problems being proposed.

Even putting aside the concerns about privacy and the age verification aspects, it seems like the law equivalent of those really poorly configured firewalls they used to have when I was at school, where they would ban things that were perfectly benign, yet people would still be able to view other things that definitely shouldn’t have been viewed by schoolchildren.

 

[Benzin]

The more I see about this legislation, the more against the manner of its implementation I am.

Labour MPs would say you're "no better than Savile".

Because current Labour really know how to respond to criticism.

 

[Matt N]

It gets better… I was having a read through Reddit this evening, and someone linked to this news article from The National: https://www.removepaywall.com/searc...-*****-home-office-meeting-online-safety-act/ (the paywall is removed)

Apparently the government (then the Tories) did hire a technology expert to consult on the OSA… but called her a ***** when she tried to raise many of the same concerns raised in here. This is the really damning quote:

The tech expert said she had spent the last six years of her career focusing on the OSA, but that she had been admonished for raising concerns during a meeting with the-then Tory-run UK government.

“I was actually in a meeting with the [UK Government in 2020] where I was called a ***** for trying to point out these issues to them,” Burns said.

“You go back to the office and talk about it and everyone gives you a round of applause and says, ‘You're in the club now. You're not up in the club until you've been called a *****’.”

If this is true, this depicts a frankly concerning level of maturity at the highest levels of government (during the Tory administration, at least). Why consult a technology expert if you’re not going to take their advice on board, let alone insult them? I get heated disagreement, but I do feel that calling someone a “*****” is a level of insult that those in the highest echelons of power should know better than to use. Can’t we debate these things more maturely, and listen to other people’s points of view without jumping down their throat, particularly when they’re a domain expert no less?

That is one thing I don’t like about the political system in this country. The debate lacks nuance; anyone who tries to raise concerns about a cause is automatically lumped in with “the other side”, when the picture is very different, and much greyer, in reality.

 

[DiogoJ42]

"*****" is the new "terrorist". A simple way to shut down any argument.
Personally, I feel it's become the new Godwin's Law. As soon as you accuse someone of something that horrible, you have lost.

 

[Matt.GC]

Not sure about the heated politics - just a bill designed by people that have no idea of the real world. It's a missed opportunity that I'm sure will have legal ramifications (what about playing an 18+ title on your PS/Xbox).

No, it's 100% heated politics behind it. Or, let me rephrase, Headline politics as it used to be known in the days before all this social media fueled populist "it's the foreigners ruining your life, let's get 'em lads"! style policitcs that has become the norm these days.

At least in the olden days, it was quite obvious when a politician was playing you and there was a nudge nudge wink wink "everybody knows the game" acceptance. Now there is no code. Lies aren't grinned off with a wink of the left eye anymore, they're now defended to the teeth and morons fall for it day in day day out, drip fed through their phones and social media algorithms.

"Won't somebody think of the children" and "save the high street" started off as populist headline grabbers that seemed well intended and are on their own hard to argue against as sound bites. Both have led to poor and incompetent policy. That's modern populism in action infecting our politics right there. The competence behind the bill (see the Rwanda farce, "oven ready" Brexit deals, and even the EU referendum itself for examples of how the scourge of modern populism is destroying good governance) is secondary to the need to not be slated too heavily by the likes of Musk, Farage, the rich ("we'll leave the country!") and other dishonourable parties with vested interests.

They stopped paying a load of rich people winter fuel payments last year, and asked millionaire landowners to sacrifice a teensy weeny bit of their extremely generous inheritance tax breaks. Suddenly, the aforementioned vested interest groups are making up lies about 103 year old Ethel dying in her cold council flat and Bob the struggling dairy farmer getting behind on his Combine Harvester repayments. All populist fabrications. Always been there, but now there are irresponsible online publishers carrying the message forward to the masses.

So with absurd pressures like that on them, and completely ego driven characters like Farage making things up as he goes along snapping at their heels it's no wonder they resort to forcing through politically charged bills that are just poorly designed like this. It's been happening for years now and, although we all hoped otherwise, we should really be used to it. I'm surprised at the surprise? It's been like this for as long as many forum members can remember, so it hardly came out of the blue.

We get the governance we ask for. This is what we asked for. Sweet nothings whispered in our ears to generate social media Likes, to hell with the consequences. Knock something together, dismiss the experts, if ignore the facts. Must not upset Farage (who managed to single handedly shape government policy for over a decade despite not being democratically elected and acting as nothing more than a loud sideline commentator from a sedentary position).

They're probably hoping that Gary is so happy his children can't access porn as easily anymore that he won't realise the ramifications until his bank account has been emptied through a knee (or something else) jerk mistake he made when he had Johnny boy in his hand trying to load up a Fake Taxi video.

 

[Matt N]

On a different political subject; would someone mind explaining to me why we apparently need to know the ethnicity and immigration status of suspected criminals prior to their convinction?: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rygx2xpy7o

Nigel Farage and Reform UK have accused the police of a “cover-up” for not revealing the ethnicity of two suspected sex offenders in Warwickshire, and the Home Secretary has stated that there needs to be “more transparency” in the matter.

I apologise if I’m missing something here, but why exactly is the ethnicity of an offender relevant information to release prior to conviction? All of their info will get released if they’re convicted, and I don’t see how knowing the ethnicity of the suspect prior to conviction really benefits anyone? From where I’m standing, a suspected criminal is still a suspected criminal regardless of what ethnicity they are, no?

I’m not asking that to be confrontational, and I apologise if it comes across that way. If I’m missing something obvious, I’m happy to be corrected… but I don’t see why there’s such a big fuss about the fact that the ethnicity of suspected criminals isn’t released. I don’t see why we need to know that prior to convinction, personally.

 

[DiogoJ42]

To some people, it matters. A lot. To those who say it doesn't matter, it matters even more.

 

[Matt N]

To some people, it matters. A lot. To those who say it doesn't matter, it matters even more.

What do you mean, exactly?