The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[DarloRich]

EDI policies are always also very selective, and pretty much never apply to able-bodied white males. If an industry has a majority of male staff and sees a further increase, that will be regarded as a problem. If the increasing majority is female, it will be ignored. Young white working-class men are one of the lowest attaining groups of all. Is anything done about it? No, not usually.

What "EDI" (?) polices do you think there are? I recruit all the time to a large public body. Not once has anyone said I can't appoint someone because of age/skin tone/sex/sexuality etc

Suggestions otherwise are fantasy.

 

[AlterEgo]

Young white working-class men are one of the lowest attaining groups of all. Is anything done about it? No, not usually.

That’s because the most significant and pervasive way in which people experience unfair treatment in this country is on the the grounds of their social class.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

What "EDI" (?) polices do you think there are? I recruit all the time to a large public body. Not once has anyone said I can't appoint someone because of age/skin tone/sex/sexuality etc

Suggestions otherwise are fantasy.

I haven't suggested that written policies drive changes - but a desire to appoint more minorities / female staff may well lead to recruitment decisions which aren't made solely on merit. In most cases this won't be blatant so would never be provable to a tribunal.

 

[DarloRich]

I haven't suggested that written policies drive changes - but a desire to appoint more minorities / female staff may well lead to recruitment decisions which aren't made solely on merit. In most cases this won't be blatant so would never be provable to a tribunal.

Ok. Do you accept my "lived experience" is that they don't.

No one has ever said you can only appoint a certain "class" if person. Ever.

 

[Harpo]

That’s because the most significant and pervasive way in which people experience unfair treatment in this country is on the the grounds of their social class.

If you’d said ‘unequal’, I’d agree as there are so many objective measures that would show it.

‘Unfair’ is very subjective and opinions would probably vary between the very social classes you refer to.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

That’s because the most significant and pervasive way in which people experience unfair treatment in this country is on the the grounds of their social class.

Indeed - and class is what the left has historically focussed on. The pivot to focusing on ethnicity, race and gender means that Labour (and many left-wing parties elsewhere) no longer represent a large part of the working class. Labour is the party of medium-income professionals these days - Civil Servants and other national and local government bodies, teachers, etc.

No one has ever said you can only appoint a certain "class" if person. Ever.

Nobody is going to actually say it, are they? Well, not if they want to avoid employment tribunals. But that doesn't prevent it from being a factor in hiring decisions.

 

[edwin_m]

Even Boris, who seems to be adaptable to just about any ideology as long as it gets him power; I suspect a lot of soft-right people, even on the more liberal/anti-Brexit side, would forgive Boris if he could prevent Farage getting in, and still more doubtless see him as some kind of hero still.

Please no. I'd like to think the population is sensible enough to see that he's a busted flush, caused quite a few of our problems and definitely isn't the person to be put in charge of fixing them.

 

[Harpo]

No one has ever said you can only appoint a certain "class" if person. Ever.

The simple job spec requirement of ‘educated to degree level’ has that effect but a degree is no proof of many other skills needed in the workplace, especially common sense.

 

[jfollows]

The simple job spec requirement of ‘educated to degree level’ has that effect but a degree is no proof of many other skills needed in the workplace, especially common sense.

Which is why I always changed the boilerplate to add “or equivalent experience” to my (public sector) job adverts. Yes, more subjective, and down to me in part to decide.
I was exasperated by the number of job adverts I saw that “required” an almost impossible collection of perfection.

 

[DarloRich]

Nobody is going to actually say it, are they? Well, not if they want to avoid employment tribunals. But that doesn't prevent it from being a factor in hiring decisions.

But, as I keep saying, it isn't. We even have blind CV's so I can't even make a judgement on someone's name if I was inclined to do so!

As the hiring manager it is up to me to choose who I want to interview, run the interviews and aptitude testing and then decided who I want.

No one second guesses or approves my decision.

It might not be like that everywhere but it is for me and I have actual experience of public sector recruitment

 

[jfollows]

But, as I keep saying, it isn't. We even have blind CV's so I can't even make a judgement on someone's name if I was inclined to do so!

As the hiring manager it is up to me to choose who I want to interview, run the interviews and aptitude testing and then decided who I want.

No one second guesses or approves my decision.

It might not be like that everywhere but it is for me and I have actual experience of public sector recruitment

Likewise for me, although I retired in 2015.

I laughed with some colleagues once when someone else said “that’s not the way we do things here” because my experience (and that of the people I was talking to) was that I could do whatever I wanted as long as I could justify it and be seen to be following the rules that existed.

I never had my decisions questioned either. I think I did the right thing.

 

[Cowley]

I think it might be worth a nudge to keep things from straying too far away from discussing the Labour Party from here on please.

Thanks

 

[Harpo]

Starmer seems to be copying the Tory mistake of doing Farage’s work and making it a high priority, increasing Farage’s profile and credibility.

If anyone needs profile and credibility it’s Starmer. Having jettisoned most of Labour’s traditional support base in year one, chasing reform’s looks desperate. Team red has become a one term team vanilla.

 

[AlterEgo]

Starmer seems to be copying the Tory mistake of doing Farage’s work and making it a high priority, increasing Farage’s profile and credibility.

But immigration - and especially illegal or irregular immigration along with the asylum seeker issue - is a high priority. Regardless of how important it is directly, this is a very visible issue.

There’s a brand new service station and Starbucks near me in Crick. The Ibis Hotel there is now an asylum hotel. The people there seem to be exclusively young men with nothing to do, who live in a chained off budget hotel, who can be seen walking main roads miles into town, who congregate in groups.

In Weedon, the Tesco frequently has asylum seekers hanging around it. Just blokes with nothing to do, no proper handle on how we exist here, a recipe for trouble. (The Holiday Inn in Flore is now an asylum hotel too)

This is a very visible problem and one which many people will find demoralising. The state is not dealing with it properly.

Many asylum seekers should not be here; they’re economic migrants and little more. Many don’t bring families.

The state needs to do two things:

- Sort the mess out. Discourage asylum claims from chancers. Make the problem less visible; like anything else obviously dysfunctional it’s a symptom of state rot and very very bad for the legitimacy of the state.

- process all claims outstanding in line with the rule of law. Speedily, fairly, and with concern and compassion. Many asylum seekers, even if not legitimate, are vulnerable and complex people. The state should have concern for all vulnerable people because it’s a barometer for how they treat other minority groups. The Reform aesthetic of dealing with it cannot fly here.

Farage is making a lot of capital from this issue because it is visible, important, and damaging. Of course it’s got worse since Brexit, and half of the issue is really his fault, but still. It’s got to be sorted.

Standards of living are declining; Britain is in severe trouble. I’d prefer a different solution than Reform offer and would vote to keep them out, but I don’t think we should pretend everything is fine and can be sorted by our NPC prime minister, a vacuous solicitor without the political acumen to hold the office in any era other than these straitened times.

 

[edwin_m]

But immigration - and especially illegal or irregular immigration along with the asylum seeker issue - is a high priority. Regardless of how important it is directly, this is a very visible issue.

There’s a brand new service station and Starbucks near me in Crick. The Ibis Hotel there is now an asylum hotel. The people there seem to be exclusively young men with nothing to do, who live in a chained off budget hotel, who can be seen walking main roads miles into town, who congregate in groups.

In Weedon, the Tesco frequently has asylum seekers hanging around it. Just blokes with nothing to do, no proper handle on how we exist here, a recipe for trouble. (The Holiday Inn in Flore is now an asylum hotel too)

This is a very visible problem and one which many people will find demoralising. The state is not dealing with it properly.

Many asylum seekers should not be here; they’re economic migrants and little more. Many don’t bring families.

The state needs to do two things:

- Sort the mess out. Discourage asylum claims from chancers. Make the problem less visible; like anything else obviously dysfunctional it’s a symptom of state rot and very very bad for the legitimacy of the state.

- process all claims outstanding in line with the rule of law. Speedily, fairly, and with concern and compassion. Many asylum seekers, even if not legitimate, are vulnerable and complex people. The state should have concern for all vulnerable people because it’s a barometer for how they treat other minority groups. The Reform aesthetic of dealing with it cannot fly here.

Farage is making a lot of capital from this issue because it is visible, important, and damaging. Of course it’s got worse since Brexit, and half of the issue is really his fault, but still. It’s got to be sorted.

Standards of living are declining; Britain is in severe trouble. I’d prefer a different solution than Reform offer and would vote to keep them out, but I don’t think we should pretend everything is fine and can be sorted by our NPC prime minister, a vacuous solicitor without the political acumen to hold the office in any era other than these straitened times.

I agree with most of this. Starmer's comments are about legal migration but "illegal migration" (which is only illegal if the asylum claim is rejected) is a bigger problem politically. So he's losing support amongst more liberal voters by attempting to attract Reform voters with the wrong issue.

 

[takno]

But immigration - and especially illegal or irregular immigration along with the asylum seeker issue - is a high priority. Regardless of how important it is directly, this is a very visible issue.

There’s a brand new service station and Starbucks near me in Crick. The Ibis Hotel there is now an asylum hotel. The people there seem to be exclusively young men with nothing to do, who live in a chained off budget hotel, who can be seen walking main roads miles into town, who congregate in groups.

In Weedon, the Tesco frequently has asylum seekers hanging around it. Just blokes with nothing to do, no proper handle on how we exist here, a recipe for trouble. (The Holiday Inn in Flore is now an asylum hotel too)

This is a very visible problem and one which many people will find demoralising. The state is not dealing with it properly.

Many asylum seekers should not be here; they’re economic migrants and little more. Many don’t bring families.

The state needs to do two things:

- Sort the mess out. Discourage asylum claims from chancers. Make the problem less visible; like anything else obviously dysfunctional it’s a symptom of state rot and very very bad for the legitimacy of the state.

- process all claims outstanding in line with the rule of law. Speedily, fairly, and with concern and compassion. Many asylum seekers, even if not legitimate, are vulnerable and complex people. The state should have concern for all vulnerable people because it’s a barometer for how they treat other minority groups. The Reform aesthetic of dealing with it cannot fly here.

Farage is making a lot of capital from this issue because it is visible, important, and damaging. Of course it’s got worse since Brexit, and half of the issue is really his fault, but still. It’s got to be sorted.

Standards of living are declining; Britain is in severe trouble. I’d prefer a different solution than Reform offer and would vote to keep them out, but I don’t think we should pretend everything is fine and can be sorted by our NPC prime minister, a vacuous solicitor without the political acumen to hold the office in any era other than these straitened times.

Illegal (or at least irregular) immigration is a very obvious issue which they have already committed to and started doing something about. The keys are to process claims, which they have been hiring to achieve but which can't happen overnight, and to turn off the tap by getting a return agreement with Europe, which is part of the deal your vacuous solicitor has actually spent most of his week on.

If we weren't in the times we are in then Starmer would probably have no issues at all. As it is he's dealing with the absolutely massive problems we have been left by the Tories which don't solve themselves quickly, and a moody factional electorate who aren't willing to accept any delay or personal downside whatsoever on the way to a utopia they can't even be bothered to define.

 

[AlterEgo]

Illegal (or at least irregular) immigration is a very obvious issue which they have already committed to and started doing something about. The keys are to process claims, which they have been hiring to achieve but which can't happen overnight

But that’s not going to be enough. 300 decision makers on a paltry salary of £30K isn’t going to cut it, becuase making the decisions is only part of the problem. The other part is the lengthy legal process asylum seekers can often be entitled to pursue. And that is their right; a large part of the bottleneck is in the appeals and judicial process, not in making decisions in the first place.

I don’t deny the government has a huge job on its hands thanks to the Tories, but given the vast amount of money they’re saving by kicking disabled people to the kerb, perhaps we could go a bit further? The government continues its punishment of certain minorities but does not even think it is a zero sum game, which gives the impression that, as with the last government, the cruelty is the point.

, and to turn off the tap by getting a return agreement with Europe, which is part of the deal your vacuous solicitor has actually spent most of his week on.

Yes that’s why he was in Albania, a fine country we will treat as a dumping ground for asylum seekers. I think this, like the Rwanda scheme, is just a scandal in the making. The disincentive is the imagined threat of cruelty in a non-EU country the asylum seeker didn’t choose to visit. He also probably hopes that giving Albania money will incentivise them to crack down on the enormous people smuggling operation there. I’m not so certain it’ll work like that and I think it’s very politically naive.

If we weren't in the times we are in then Starmer would probably have no issues at all.

You may be right there. But we have to play the field as it lies, not how we hope it to be.

As it is he's dealing with the absolutely massive problems we have been left by the Tories which don't solve themselves quickly, and a moody factional electorate who aren't willing to accept any delay or personal downside whatsoever

What sort of personal downsides do you think people should suffer? And why, so far, has a lot of the burden fallen on vulnerable people? Spineless from a “Labour” party unworthy of the name.

 

[takno]

But that’s not going to be enough. 300 decision makers on a paltry salary of £30K isn’t going to cut it, becuase making the decisions is only part of the problem. The other part is the lengthy legal process asylum seekers can often be entitled to pursue. And that is their right; a large part of the bottleneck is in the appeals and judicial process, not in making decisions in the first place.

I don’t deny the government has a huge job on its hands thanks to the Tories, but given the vast amount of money they’re saving by kicking disabled people to the kerb, perhaps we could go a bit further? The government continues its punishment of certain minorities but does not even think it is a zero sum game, which gives the impression that, as with the last government, the cruelty is the point.


Yes that’s why he was in Albania, a fine country we will treat as a dumping ground for asylum seekers. I think this, like the Rwanda scheme, is just a scandal in the making. The disincentive is the imagined threat of cruelty in a non-EU country the asylum seeker didn’t choose to visit. He also probably hopes that giving Albania money will incentivise them to crack down on the enormous people smuggling operation there. I’m not so certain it’ll work like that and I think it’s very politically naive.


You may be right there. But we have to play the field as it lies, not how we hope it to be.


What sort of personal downsides do you think people should suffer? And why, so far, has a lot of the burden fallen on vulnerable people? Spineless from a “Labour” party unworthy of the name.

So, having established that you're furious about the problems and furious about any attempt to solve them, what's your plan?

 

[AlterEgo]

So, having established that you're furious about the problems and furious about any attempt to solve them, what's your plan?

First, tell me what downsides people have to suffer under the plan you support, and why, so far, much of the burden has fallen on the vulnerable. Then we can establish some first principles about how much you support the government’s plans so far, and what level of state cruelty you deem acceptable to achieve them.

I think this is quite fair given you are defending the status quo here and I asked you those questions first.

 

[The Ham]

But immigration - and especially illegal or irregular immigration along with the asylum seeker issue - is a high priority. Regardless of how important it is directly, this is a very visible issue.

There’s a brand new service station and Starbucks near me in Crick. The Ibis Hotel there is now an asylum hotel. The people there seem to be exclusively young men with nothing to do, who live in a chained off budget hotel, who can be seen walking main roads miles into town, who congregate in groups.

In Weedon, the Tesco frequently has asylum seekers hanging around it. Just blokes with nothing to do, no proper handle on how we exist here, a recipe for trouble. (The Holiday Inn in Flore is now an asylum hotel too)

This is a very visible problem and one which many people will find demoralising. The state is not dealing with it properly.

Many asylum seekers should not be here; they’re economic migrants and little more. Many don’t bring families.

The state needs to do two things:

- Sort the mess out. Discourage asylum claims from chancers. Make the problem less visible; like anything else obviously dysfunctional it’s a symptom of state rot and very very bad for the legitimacy of the state.

- process all claims outstanding in line with the rule of law. Speedily, fairly, and with concern and compassion. Many asylum seekers, even if not legitimate, are vulnerable and complex people. The state should have concern for all vulnerable people because it’s a barometer for how they treat other minority groups. The Reform aesthetic of dealing with it cannot fly here.

Farage is making a lot of capital from this issue because it is visible, important, and damaging. Of course it’s got worse since Brexit, and half of the issue is really his fault, but still. It’s got to be sorted.

Standards of living are declining; Britain is in severe trouble. I’d prefer a different solution than Reform offer and would vote to keep them out, but I don’t think we should pretend everything is fine and can be sorted by our NPC prime minister, a vacuous solicitor without the political acumen to hold the office in any era other than these straitened times.

Part of the issue you've identified is down to the fact that people were concerned about immigration and so slowed down the processing of asylum applications.

Also, do you want to hazard a guess at what is likely to happen if the UK joined the US in cutting all aid spending?

My guess would be that there would be far less places for displaced people to stay near their homes/countries and so they are more willing to try and seek asylum in a western country - which may result in more people trying to come here.

If we want to see fewer people in asylum hotels options could include:
- opening routes to claim asylum without having to be in UK
- ensuring that aid projects are funded, so people displace as short a distance as practical
- ensure that asylum applications are processed quickly
- provide things to do for those awaiting their approval or otherwise
- provide other options to asylum applications (for example if someone is a doctor give them the opportunity to work as a doctor)

Yes that’s why he was in Albania, a fine country we will treat as a dumping ground for asylum seekers. I think this, like the Rwanda scheme, is just a scandal in the making. The disincentive is the imagined threat of cruelty in a non-EU country the asylum seeker didn’t choose to visit. He also probably hopes that giving Albania money will incentivise them to crack down on the enormous people smuggling operation there. I’m not so certain it’ll work like that and I think it’s very politically naive.

My understanding is that it's different to Rwanda, in that it appears that would only be used once the application process has been exhausted.

However, again, it's probably been done in response to those who want fewer asylum seekers (even though there's very little that can be done to stop it)

 

[AlterEgo]

Part of the issue you've identified is down to the fact that people were concerned about immigration and so slowed down the processing of asylum applications.

Also, do you want to hazard a guess at what is likely to happen if the UK joined the US in cutting all aid spending?

Who has mentioned cutting aid spending? The UK should be spending more on aid to increase its soft power and decrease global instability.

If we want to see fewer people in asylum hotels options could include:
- opening routes to claim asylum without having to be in UK
- ensuring that aid projects are funded, so people displace as short a distance as practical

Yes and yes, of course.

- ensure that asylum applications are processed quickly

Not just quickly, but also properly. One of the big problems under the old regime was they recruited a lot of decision makers who were not very good - either because the wrong people got selected, or just because there were too many probationary staff at once. This actually increased the burden on tribunals, which, thanks to Britain's drained legal aid system, has a dearth of legal professionals available to represent claimants, which slows the process down further and decreases applicant's access to justice.

£30K to decide people's applications is asking for trouble. I got paid that handling complaints for a train company. Ten years ago. Sorry but this is important work; Britain continues to be extremely cheap when it comes to increasing the capacity of the state and in getting short term political gains from the asylum issue.

- provide things to do for those awaiting their approval or otherwise

I mean, yes, but also...what?

- provide other options to asylum applications (for example if someone is a doctor give them the opportunity to work as a doctor)

Absolutely no way anyone is getting vetted to work in a job where you can kill people when they don't have proper leave. But aside from that specific example, okay, let's say people can work while claiming, so they can be productive. In what jobs though? We don't have vacancies for every asylum seeker.

My understanding is that it's different to Rwanda, in that it appears that would only be used once the application process has been exhausted.

A great many asylum seekers simply disappear before that juncture, and this would only act as an incentive for even more people to stop engaging at the very last moment and simply disappear. This is political dynamite because you only need one or two to commit a heinous crime and the tinder box explodes again.

 

[The Ham]

Who has mentioned cutting aid spending? The UK should be spending more on aid to increase its soft power and decrease global instability.

Indeed, although it's something which some think is a bad thing to spend money on

Not just quickly, but also properly. One of the big problems under the old regime was they recruited a lot of decision makers who were not very good - either because the wrong people got selected, or just because there were too many probationary staff at once. This actually increased the burden on tribunals, which, thanks to Britain's drained legal aid system, has a dearth of legal professionals available to represent claimants, which slows the process down further and decreases applicant's access to justice.

£30K to decide people's applications is asking for trouble. I got paid that handling complaints for a train company. Ten years ago. Sorry but this is important work; Britain continues to be extremely cheap when it comes to increasing the capacity of the state and in getting short term political gains from the asylum issue.

Part of the issue is that there's not a lot of people who do this who you can recruit from other companies, so you've pretty much employ people who are general officer workers and train them.

As such you can't increase capacity quickly, so it's foolish to cut it too quickly too - although that's what happened.

I mean, yes, but also...what?

There's lots of options, probably the best thing would be something which the local community saw as useful.

What that is would be for communities to agree on, however would need to be from an acceptable list. For example, you wouldn't want take which made them feel that they were being punished.

Absolutely no way anyone is getting vetted to work in a job where you can kill people when they don't have proper leave. But aside from that specific example, okay, let's say people can work while claiming, so they can be productive. In what jobs though? We don't have vacancies for every asylum seeker.

It's possible for employers to offer jobs to people from overseas, with their visa dependent on that job. There may be a need for some training to ensure that they are of an acceptable standard, especially for doctors, but that is likely to be the case if they were given approval.

The list of jobs would likely be linked to the list of jobs where we have shortages.

However, for about half of all applicants ask that will mean it's that they will be working sooner. For the other half, they are likely to be replaced by other applications and so the over all number of jobs required would likely be fairly stable (OK you'd need some more jobs to facilitate the extra people working when you first brought in the change, but after that it would only change if there was a significant change in application numbers).

A great many asylum seekers simply disappear before that juncture, and this would only act as an incentive for even more people to stop engaging at the very last moment and simply disappear. This is political dynamite because you only need one or two to commit a heinous crime and the tinder box explodes again.

Just how it's that different to the current situation?

 

[AlterEgo]

Part of the issue is that there's not a lot of people who do this who you can recruit from other companies, so you've pretty much employ people who are general officer workers and train them.

Well, yes, there is a dearth of talent. Which is why recruiting 300 people on laughable salaries ain’t going to do much.

There's lots of options, probably the best thing would be something which the local community saw as useful.

What that is would be for communities to agree on, however would need to be from an acceptable list. For example, you wouldn't want take which made them feel that they were being punished.

If it’s unpaid it’s likely to be against their human rights. If it’s paid then people will rightly ask why asylum seekers get the New Deal of guaranteed paid work and they don’t.

It's possible for employers to offer jobs to people from overseas, with their visa dependent on that job. There may be a need for some training to ensure that they are of an acceptable standard, especially for doctors, but that is likely to be the case if they were given approval.


The list of jobs would likely be linked to the list of jobs where we have shortages.

We already recruit people on visas for that. Some of those visas are expensive for employer and employee. Where then, is the incentive for regular, properly qualified immigrants, and where is the incentive for employers to employ those people as opposed to asylum seekers?

Just how it's that different to the current situation?

Because the current situation is that even when refused, failed asylum seekers are sometimes not removed. What this does is put a very hard incentive to disappear before the final refusal and exhaustion of legal process. It won’t work.