The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

And the fact it’s a senior labour figure, not some career diplomat nobody has heard of. Add in the fact that it involves Epstein & appears that Starmer ignored others with reservations, it could well be pretty serious for Starmer.
 

Labour are a bit queasy about changing leaders, I’ve no doubt the Tories would be looking to ditch someone who had a first 12 months like this. It’s been an absolute shit show, nobody can have  thought he’d be this useless. 

I don't think he'll be in charge for the next election -something that was inconceivable when they got in.

[iansums]

7 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

This is with a massive run up. They had been holding lots of meetings to firm up their strategy before getting into power.

They had a strategy?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

They had a strategy?

They were going to hit the ground running with it. Rather than crash into the ground, and burst into flames with no sign of it.

[AlexLaw76]

1 year in...Adults something something

 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

1 year in...Adults something something

 

Jesus, your like those annoying mates who say a joke that's not funny and no-one responds, so then they repeat it multiple times until someone has to tell you they heard it the first time, and it wasn't funny then.

#martino

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

1 year in...Adults something something

 

Tim Shipman said yesterday that they are reminding him of the Tories in 2022, only difference is, they’d been in power 12 years, not 12 months….😂😂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

1 year in...Adults something something

 

More that the factions already inherent in all groups are vying for control. Labour's left and right have been at war for ages now.

I read a passing headline suggesting that the frontrunners for deputy are more on Starmer's side of things.

So no surprise to see those on the wrong side of their political purge look to reset the balance.

Also no surprise to hear moans from backbenchers, who always feel unloved because they're not running things. Knives out for Morgan McSweeney as someone they as behind d things they don't like.

Starmer presenting his opponents with open goals when economic growth has faltered gives them plenty of encouragement.

[Wade Garrett]

We all knew that Rayner and Mandelson wouldn’t last.  We all know that Starmer won’t last.  My fear is someone on the left will take over and fuck things up even more than they are now.

Ideally, somehow, an election will be called early.  I’m not sure what in what scenario this could happen though.

These chumps make the Tories look competent.

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

We all knew that Rayner and Mandelson wouldn’t last.  We all know that Starmer won’t last.  My fear is someone on the left will take over and fuck things up even more than they are now.

Ideally, somehow, an election will be called early.  I’m not sure what in what scenario this could happen though.

These chumps make the Tories look competent.

Zero chance there's an early election. No way are they giving up power voluntarily. Like you say, we need to cross our fingers that any damage they do during the rest of their tenure is not too terrible. Long way to go still.

[aintforever]

Whilst I despise them, I wouldn’t actually be bothered if Reform win the next election. If we get PR it will be curtains for the two main parties, the Red v Blue bollocks needs consigning to history.

[Gloucester Saint]

On 12/09/2025 at 14:28, hypochondriac said:

I don't think he'll be in charge for the next election -something that was inconceivable when they got in.

Streeting or Burnham

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Streeting or Burnham

I've always liked Burnham. He might be shit but likability and perceived authenticity counts for a lot. If he can win a seat I reckon he'd be a good shout.

Edited Saturday at 21:51 by hypochondriac

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I've always liked Burnham. He might be shit but liability and perceived authenticity counts for a lot. If he can win a seat I reckon he'd be a good shout.

At least he doesn’t come across as an absolute prick which is makes him better than most of them. Thats how bad it’s got, all we’re wanting a bloke who isn’t a complete cock to be PM

[Farmer Saint]

Burnham because he's proper left.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

At least he doesn’t come across as an absolute prick which is makes him better than most of them. Thats how bad it’s got, all we’re wanting a bloke who isn’t a complete cock to be PM

We haven't had one since John Major TBF.

Maybe a bit harsh on May actually.

Edited Saturday at 21:52 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

We haven't had one since John Major TBF.

Maybe a bit harsh on May actually.

Was just about to say May. She was just a bit of an oddball.

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We haven't had one since John Major TBF.

Maybe a bit harsh on May actually.

May was quite genuine but was given a hospital pass the rest of them are cocks

[iansums]

9 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Burnham because he's proper left.

Streeting, because Burnham is proper left. I have a lot of time for Streeting, very impressed by him.

[badgerx16]

16 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Burnham...

It's under way.

Edited Sunday at 14:49 by badgerx16

[Wade Garrett]

20 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I've always liked Burnham. He might be shit but likability and perceived authenticity counts for a lot. If he can win a seat I reckon he'd be a good shout.

Covering up for the grooming gangs pretty much rules him out.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Hands up, who had sexually explicit conversations about Abbott as the reason for the next team member,  (pun intended) to leave  😂😂 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Hands up, who had sexually explicit conversations about Abbott as the reason for the next team member,  (pun intended) to leave  😂😂 

3 weeks. 3 departures.

Since this was the director of political strategy, things might actually improve.

[hypochondriac]

Off to a promising start. All going swimmingly. Goodness knows where we are going to be after another three years of this.

Edited Monday at 20:19 by hypochondriac

[Holmes_and_Watson]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Off to a promising start. All going swimmingly. Goodness knows where we are going to be after another three years of this.

Tomorrow's news...today!

5000 charity workers arrested in anti terrorism swoop

Dr Razia Shariff, the chief executive of Kent Refugee Action Network (KARN) told reporters "I was just holding up a leaflet saying " I oppose forced migration. I support KARN, when I was surrounded by 5 heavily armed officers."

"Where there are leaflets," said home secretary Shabana Mahmood, "there are placards and access to the dangerous tools of terrorism like felt tips, and paint. Our ever-decisive PM has taken quick action to remove violent stationary from our society, by adding all migrants charities onto the proscribed terrorist list."

[Lord Duckhunter]

45 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Off to a promising start. All going swimmingly. Goodness knows where we are going to be after another three years of this.

#smashthegangs

[hypochondriac]

15 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Off to a promising start. All going swimmingly. Goodness knows where we are going to be after another three years of this.

 

That's two flights gone and a total of zero illegals left. I wonder if they will let reporters on the third one?

Edited 19 hours ago by hypochondriac

[tdmickey3]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That's two flights gone and a total of zero illegals left. I wonder if they will let reporters on the third one?

Why wouldn't they ?

[AlexLaw76]

Smashing the gangs - deterrent working well

what a fucking shit show of a Government 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

That's two flights gone and a total of zero illegals left. I wonder if they will let reporters on the third one?

‘Intrepid’ lol. For someone who bemoans the impact of social media I get the feeling you are very much being fed.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Smashing the gangs - deterrent working well

what a fucking shit show of a Government 

Don`t worry, we will have the born again tory masterclass back soon enough, but under a different name and mouthpiece

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, whelk said:

‘Intrepid’ lol. For someone who bemoans the impact of social media I get the feeling you are very much being fed.

Hardly. It's a fact that a second flight was meant to go today and hasn't done so. I don't give a shit about some crappy sun journalist , it's the story that matters. I know you like to play down anything like this...

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hardly. It's a fact that a second flight was meant to go today and hasn't done so. I don't give a shit about some crappy sun journalist , it's the story that matters. I know you like to play down anything like this...

Serious question, did you post up like this during the Rwanda success 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Serious question, did you post up like this during the Rwanda success 

Rwanda was a ridiculous waste of time and money that was never going to work and I believe I posted as much at the time. It's mad that any government can be held hostage by activist charities. Just change the fucking law and tell the charities and activist lawyers to fuck off and do what you were voted in to do.

Edited 14 hours ago by hypochondriac

[tdmickey3]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Rwanda was a ridiculous waste of time and money that was never going to work and I believe I posted as much at the time. It's ridiculous that any government can be held hostage by activist charities. Just change the fucking law and tell the charities and activist lawyers to fuck off and do what you were voted in to do.

Totally agree 😳

[hypochondriac]

Looks like three for three now. Labour must realise surely how ridiculous this makes them look. Just come out with a statement saying how angry you are at this state of affairs happening again and again and how weak it makes the people supposedly in power. Let us know that you're going to changing the law as soon as possible to remove these impediments. In many ways this is now worse than doing nothing.

[Gloucester Saint]

They need to bring the revised appeals process straight away using panels and if still a rejection then straight out of the country. If the activists and Refugee Council want to bring them back to string it out they can pay for it themselves and do battle with the Border Force.

That will empty the activists coffers rather quickly over a growing sample size of rejections and deportations. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They need to bring the revised appeals process straight away using panels and if still a rejection then straight out of the country. If the activists and Refugee Council want to bring them back to string they can pay for it themselves and do battle with the Border Force.

That will empty the activists coffers rather quickly over a growing sample size of rejections and deportations. 

Anything like that would be better than what is happening now. How did Labour not know that this sort of thing was obviously going to happen ?

[iansums]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Looks like three for three now. Labour must realise surely how ridiculous this makes them look. Just come out with a statement saying how angry you are at this state of affairs happening again and again and how weak it makes the people supposedly in power. Let us know that you're going to changing the law as soon as possible to remove these impediments. In many ways this is now worse than doing nothing.

Whether it’s a Tory or Labour government, my heart sinks when I read a report like that.

[egg]

25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Looks like three for three now. Labour must realise surely how ridiculous this makes them look. Just come out with a statement saying how angry you are at this state of affairs happening again and again and how weak it makes the people supposedly in power. Let us know that you're going to changing the law as soon as possible to remove these impediments. In many ways this is now worse than doing nothing.

I think the only legal change could be to stop a claim of being a victim of modern day slavery being relevant to a claim for asylum or for discretionary leave to remain. In reality, it's hard to see any government doing that. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Anything like that would be better than what is happening now. How did Labour not know that this sort of thing was obviously going to happen ?

It happened to the Tories regularly and would happen to Reform, even if we pulled out of the ECHR. Grieve explained how they’d just use Common Law to be a nuisance (the judges). Best way is to undermine them without actually breaking the law and break the activists finances. It won’t be overnight as they are well funded but it will kick in after a few months of funding return travel and logistics to bring each case back. 

[Gloucester Saint]

6 minutes ago, iansums said:

Whether it’s a Tory or Labour government, my heart sinks when I read a report like that.

The courts are subverting democratically-elected governments and will carry on doing so, hence the answer is to play anti-Queensbury rules and hit the charities incomes by instant deportation the moment a rejection happens under the already proposed shortened appeals system. I don’t want us to follow America with politically-appointed judges, you end up with losing Roe Vs Wade and the Evangelicals spread their odious tentacles here. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

I think the only legal change could be to stop a claim of being a victim of modern day slavery being relevant to a claim for asylum or for discretionary leave to remain. In reality, it's hard to see any government doing that. 

I think they have to though. And then keep tweaking the law again and again to counter the activists tactics. 
Having a punch up with the courts might actually politically take some heat off as well.

Edited 11 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[AlexLaw76]

40 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Looks like three for three now. Labour must realise surely how ridiculous this makes them look. Just come out with a statement saying how angry you are at this state of affairs happening again and again and how weak it makes the people supposedly in power. Let us know that you're going to changing the law as soon as possible to remove these impediments. In many ways this is now worse than doing nothing.

The 'Ins' are still coming, according to Ch4 News

And it will be more than 1 for 1.

Edited 11 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It happened to the Tories regularly and would happen to Reform, even if we pulled out of the ECHR. Grieve explained how they’d just use Common Law to be a nuisance (the judges). Best way is to undermine them without actually breaking the law and break the activists finances. It won’t be overnight as they are well funded but it will kick in after a few months of funding return travel and logistics to bring each case back. 

It's more of an issue than that. 

If being a victim of slavery is claimed, that's a process that runs separately to the asylum application, although the decision of the former feeds into the latter. The former (and any government or quasi government decision) can always be the subject of judicial review. The only way to stop that, I'd imagine, is to take away that particular process, and just roll slavery claims up as part of the general asylum application. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I think they have to though. And then keep tweaking the law again and again to counter the activists tactics. 
Having a punch up with the courts might actually politically take some heat off as well.

As per my post above, I think the answer is to abandon the separate process that addresses the claim of modern slavery, and just have it as a factor to be considered when dealing with the asylum application/appeal. 

The issue then is to deal with appeals quicker, and that means allocating more tribunals, judges, and resources to dealing with them. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, egg said:

It's more of an issue than that. 

If being a victim of slavery is claimed, that's a process that runs separately to the asylum application, although the decision of the former feeds into the latter. The former (and any government or quasi government decision) can always be the subject of judicial review. The only way to stop that, I'd imagine, is to take away that particular process, and just roll slavery claims up as part of the general asylum application. 

It’s why the Home Office allowed a large cohort of Albanian women to stay in 2022 who were allegedly victims of trafficking - because they probably had no option. Whilst it’s not pleasant, the processes probably do need to be rolled up.

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, iansums said:

Whether it’s a Tory or Labour government, my heart sinks when I read a report like that.

Agreed. This is insanity. Why are the people in charge of our country unable to govern the way they want to? Why are they allowing this?

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It happened to the Tories regularly and would happen to Reform, even if we pulled out of the ECHR. Grieve explained how they’d just use Common Law to be a nuisance (the judges). Best way is to undermine them without actually breaking the law and break the activists finances. It won’t be overnight as they are well funded but it will kick in after a few months of funding return travel and logistics to bring each case back. 

What do you mean break the law ? They are responsible for the law! Change the bloody law and remove the authority of the judges in this area.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What do you mean break the law ? They are responsible for the law! Change the bloody law and remove the authority of the judges in this area.

What are you actually asking to be changed? 

Are you saying that as a country we should ignore claims of modern slavery as a relevant factor in asylum cases? 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

What are you actually asking to be changed? 

Are you saying that as a country we should ignore claims of modern slavery as a relevant factor in asylum cases? 

I think if we're sending them back to France I don't see the relevance. Hand them to French authorities and let them deal with it. Don't come here illegally.