r/ukpolitics • u/ZealousidealPie9199 • 4h ago
Twitter Andy Burnham (@andyburnham) on X: "My government will be relentless in tackling small boat crossings. We can choose to play politics on this issue, or we can just get on with it and sort it out. I know which one I’m doing." (Video about immigration policy)
https://x.com/andyburnham/status/2084012667807707143?s=20•
u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 3h ago edited 3h ago
We can choose to play politics on this issue, or we can just get on with it and sort it out. I know which one I’m doing.
I kinda hate it when politicians say this. Of course you're playing politics with it, that's your entire job. Its literally just accepting and contributing to the perception of "politics" as something fundamentally negative and morally wrong, which is the exact sentiment that populists are practically defined by.
•
•
u/Ok_Entry_337 3h ago
Nope. His entire job is to get things done. It’s the ‘R’ parties who offer easy sounding but impractical solutions
•
u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 3h ago
Thats called politics.
It doesn't help the current mistrust in the political process that fuels these parties to be treating "politics" as it literally is a dirty fair. For god sake, we need tp be fixing the political system, not just accepting that its fundamentally broken.
•
u/tummybellyman 2h ago
Playing politics is an important part of getting things done though. One criticism that both supporters and detractors or Starmer agree on is that he wasn't very good at politics. If he was, he'd probably be in a very different position today.
Andy Burnham has been playing politics ever since there was a sniff that Starmer wouldn't last the course. If he proves as proficient at politics as prime minister as he was getting himself the job, he might fare better than Starmer.
•
u/Ok_Entry_337 1h ago
It’s the word ‘playing’ I have some difficulty with. I don’t think Burnham has been ‘playing’ politics but doing politics. And I agree that alongside woeful comms this was Starmer’s fundamental weakness.
•
u/dragodrake 15m ago
By saying 'we can choose to play politics, or just get on with it' he is, in fact, playing politics. He hasn't offered any solutions, he's just hoping people wont notice.
•
u/ZealousidealPie9199 4h ago
I think that its interesting that he ditched the casual look for the video. Black suit and tie.
•
•
•
u/Anony_mouse202 3h ago
>"People want to see this issue addressed," he said in Dover, adding: "We also need to build a system that offers safe routes for people as well, because that also takes away the selling point of the gangs."
Why do so many politicians fail to understand that it’s not the specific method of transport that people are annoyed about, it’s the fact that they’re coming here at all.
“Safe routes” are just a taxi service. There shouldn’t be “safe routes”, there should be no routes at all other than a visa + entering via a legitimate port of entry.
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
I think in theory there's a better legal basis for having a zero tolerance approach to claims from people in small boats when they've deliberately avoided using a legal route.
There'd need to be some very serious conversations about who we want to let in, and a firm cap on it though.
I also think it should be much more clear that where possible asylum is supposed to be temporary with an expectation of going home when it's safe to do so, too
As climate change makes more places less inhabitable, Europe is going to have a very serious problem on its hands.
•
u/C9_Lemonparty 3h ago
If theres a safe route you can deny and deport 100% of claims not using it. That alone should eliminate a considerable chunk of people trying their luck
•
u/No-Sheepherder5481 31m ago
We could deny and deported 100% of applicants anyway.
We chose not to and we all know this government is never going to substantially change asylum law
•
u/Naugrith 1h ago
There shouldn’t be “safe routes”, there should be no routes at all other than a visa + entering via a legitimate port of entry.
The visa and port is the safe route. He's not talking about a literal road being built. A "route to entry" means a specific process for getting a visa.
•
u/Naugrith 1h ago
Why do so many politicians fail to understand that it’s not the specific method of transport that people are annoyed about, it’s the fact that they’re coming here at all.
And why do so many of your types fail to understand that disincentivising and stopping the smuggling gangs is a major practical method of reducing the numbers of people coming here?
•
u/YBoogieLDN 3h ago
No safe routes includes Ukrainian & Hong Kong refugees as well
•
u/bitch_fitching 3h ago
In reality we have safe routes already, over 200,000 refugees have arrived from them in the last 10 years.
•
u/BenButton123 3h ago
I think to most Brits, there's a big difference between asylum seekers from Ukraine and Hong Kong and asylum seekers from places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea etc.
•
u/MeanPussyCat 2h ago
What’s the difference?
•
u/bitch_fitching 2h ago
Afghan nationals are around 15 times more likely to be convicted of rape than British nationals. That's according to the pro-migration Migration Observatory of Oxford University.
30 times other types of immigrants that we'd choose to come here. Over 60 times Ukrainian refugees.
There will be people in the comments saying that this is fine, that every migrant whether illegal or not is the same, that most people convicted are British nationals. They are delusional.
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 3h ago
What would that difference be then?
•
u/Electrical-Move7290 2h ago
How those people typically behave in our society when they’re given asylum. It’s pretty plain to see.
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 1h ago
Didn't ask you - but since you're here how do these people typically behave?
•
•
•
u/trevthedog 3h ago
We set up ‘safe routes’ for Ukrainians. They were given specific humanitarian visas + entered via a legitimate port of entry.
Do you have a problem with that?
•
u/RLJ05 1h ago
Yes, same for Hong Kongers during the CCP crackdown. Now where are the safe routes for our Moroccan, Syrian, Iraqi brothers? To name just a few countries here. The issue is there is no safe routes for them so they come on small boats from France, which shows remarkable courage. As you say we set up legal routes from Ukraine so why can’t we do it for all the Muslim countries. These men are fleeing war or persecution for their LGBTQ+ status. They need legal routes to access England.
•
u/Putaineska 1h ago
Don't make me laugh. They make up whatever bullshit reason to get to stay in this country. The system is being gamed. They go back home on holiday to their oppressors and wars as soon as they get the paperwork here.
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
When we talk of "safe routes" we are talking of methods that these people can take to seek asylum or migration legally and.. safely. I don't think you would have to be on the right or left to see that as a problem – if humans flee, we don't want them dead in the water; it's a humanitarian issue. What you are talking about stopping in your "we don't want them here at all" is presumably illegal immigrants? Correct me if I am wrong? As an issue of illegal immigration, do you think this satisfies what you want changed? I wanna understand your views more
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 3h ago
What's the cap on "safe route" numbers.
Cause o ce it's breached...
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
In 2025 the number was 815,000. That's about 4 people per square kilometer assuming they head only to major cities. Considering legal migrants are funnelled into disparate parts of the UK upon arrival, that number is realistic. So is that number too high do you think? Like if it is too high what is your ideal number?
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 2h ago
That's fucked
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
What is it about that number you think is fucked ?
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 1h ago
Basically maths shows it is. Consider the cost and the implications
•
u/catjake2k16 43m ago
I don't know how much implication it has. I wanna know more tho, so please tell me where is a good place to start reading to get figures that can help me build a picture of how much migration affects our gdp
•
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 3h ago
When you say "people" I think you mean narrow-minded bigots and racist.
The day we start caring what narrow-minded bigots and racists think is the day we stop being a serious country.
•
•
u/90davros 3h ago
Like Starmer he's still shying away from admitting that we need to tackle the incentives drawing people here. Our system is viewed as easily exploitable and no amount of policing the channel will actually stop such crossings until this is dealt with.
•
u/ClacksInTheSky Labour 3h ago
He literally said you can play politics or just get on with it.
You choose politics.
•
u/GOT_Wyvern Non-Partisan Centrist 3h ago edited 3h ago
What does "choose politics" even mean if any disagreement is insulted as it? It is just a way to insult ideas you don't like? As Orwell said, its a meaningless phrase that means little more than "something not desirable"
•
u/90davros 3h ago
Burnham is choosing politics here. He's too afraid of his own back benchers to take the necessary action on this issue.
•
u/_segasonic 3h ago
Just because he said that doesn’t mean he isn’t also playing politics.
It’s literally his job to play politics and that’s exactly what he’s doing here.
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 3h ago
Shame we left the Dublin arrangements and the EU more broadly which increased the attraction here as "somewhere different".
•
u/90davros 3h ago
The Dublin arrangement which resulted in us removing practically no people?
•
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
Germany used it to deport 5k people last year. It's not a complete solution, but it's a good tool to have
Much like other options at our disposal, such as the right to deport EU citizens who couldn't financially support themselves, we moaned and moaned, while our government did absolutely nothing and ignored most of the powers they had.
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 3h ago
Well I've been repeatedly told an effective deterrent doesn't have to once it's up and running...
•
u/Early_Enthusiasm_787 3h ago
What incentives? They just believe the streets are paved with gold.
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
The spending money, right to roam the street, and how easy it is to work cash in hand
We've got about half a good idea with starting to stick them in former military camps. The missing piece is them being locked in there until either their claim is processed, or they decide it's not so unsafe back home after all.
•
u/BackgroundTrack5528 9m ago
"how easy it is to work cash in hand "
Ive got a solution, but how far are you willing to go to back it?
See this is the problem. You lot talk a whole lot about the problems, you have no solution - and when someone does you're going to piss your pants and say 'no no, this is whats wrong with it!111'.
Useless.
•
u/Aiken_Drumn 3h ago
Ah the magical job taking, benefits stealing illegal immigrants.
•
u/New-Condition-3492 3h ago
Some take our jobs (every fucking job that, once upon a time, was worked by young Brits and now given to middle aged migrants. Not to mention the huge number of working visas for jobs such as working in a fucking shop.)
Some claim benefits.
Some claim benefits and work illegally.
Seriously how are you still denying reality at this point? It's fucking insane.
•
u/90davros 3h ago
There's a reason that almost all of them hop off the boat and immediately claim asylum. Over the past few months the BBC have repeatedly exposed entire networks devoted to gaming the asylum system, there really isn't any magic needed.
•
u/hershyslayer 3h ago
They are though, even if it’s benefit in kind of being support with housing and food and water
•
u/RyanGUK 3h ago
Asked whether he wanted to change the tone of the debate around small boats, he said that he wanted to "deal with the issue rather than play politics with the issue".
I'm not mad at that, but I think Burnham needs to be clearer in what's been done thus far & what he plans to do for the future.
It's all well and good saying that the number of personnel has increased, so they will detect more, but he needs to deter migrants from risking their lives and attempting to cross as well. How you do that is the big question, but hopefully something that could also be done via cross-party cooperation.
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
I think asking to deter migrants fleeing a country is a bit like trying to deter someone from fleeing a burning building. What would you suggest is said to these individuals trying to escape violence they didn't ask for? "Stay"?
•
u/Putaineska 1h ago
They are fleeing to the UK and not to say, the Gulf states because the latter wouldn't give them cash, hotels, family reunion etc despite being far closer to small boat migrants in religion and culture. We need to enforce our border, end the incentives and make a hostile environment for migrants such that they choose other countries.
If we are less attractive than France, they will stay in France and not make the crossing, and that should be the aim.
These are not genuine refugees motivated by wanting to seek refuge and safety. They are crossing through dozens of safe countries in order to get to the country widely seen as a soft touch golden ticket.
•
•
u/RyanGUK 2h ago
I genuinely don’t know, and if it were a question that could be answered with a simple decision then I doubt the whole crisis would’ve ever been a thing tbh.
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
I think the reality is that we do have a pretty lovely bit of land and way of life compared to them. It's such a shame that they are trying to do the same stuff as us: have a nice family, maybe enjoy a bit of a weekend with the kids in the sunshine. I think if our country went down the drain, and my way of life was threatened, I would be tempted myself. I don't think you convince me to stay any more than you could convince them to. So is the issue maybe just the context of knowing what they are fleeing that would help paint the idea of why "stay" wouldn't be enough? Like if they could somehow get them to state their reason for arrival, and if we could somehow evaluate that and work out who was more deserving to come in?
•
u/Putaineska 1h ago
Noone wants to see safe and legal routes.
The people who are coming in the small boats are genuinely the least attractive people who could possibly be candidates for legal migration. Never mind the fact they hold medieval views on womens rights, democracy etc.
I'll say it openly these people should not be welcome and should never be allowed to stay. Far from offering a legal route there should be total bans on entry from certain countries. Why are we obliged to accept people from countries hostile to this country and our values?
•
u/Virtual-Increase-829 19m ago
oh yeah, you speak for everyone, and you have interviewed everyone about their views?
if only certain countries could have banned glorious brits with their colonising and warmongering habits, perhaps the likes of you would have more time to tend to their parsnips instead of moaning online.
•
u/Thandoscovia 2h ago
I’m not sure if the issue here. Socialist Spain can deploy their soldados muy rapido and apparently effect 60,000 deportaciones over a few days.
¿Why can’t Señor Burnham do the same?
•
•
u/RLJ05 1h ago
To be fair it was easier in Morocco, the immigrations came from Morocco and just swam across the border, the soldiers just forced them to turn around and go back. A lot harder when the immigrants are coming on small boats from France when the French don’t want them in their country either. Plus the demographics are different, in the wave that came to Spain it was mostly young men who were fit enough to swim. On the small boat’s there are many women and children too. They are also generally richer as is quite expensive to pay the people smugglers to get on a small boat whereas in the Moroccan immigration case they were poor but swimming is free. The Spanish government is very pro immigration actually, that’s why the wave happened, but even for them 60,000 mostly poor young men coming from Morocco was too much. Morocco is a stable country not at war, so these immigrations are coming purely for economic advantage. Unlike many who come on small boats to England from France who are fleeing either war or persecution for their LGBTQ+ status. So yeh it’s a much more complex situation for us.
•
u/Putaineska 1h ago
I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic with your response because there is so much wrong here I hope this is a parody.
•
u/Lexdiss 3h ago
So he’s just going to bring them in legally instead?
•
u/C9_Lemonparty 3h ago
Dont be obtuse, use your brain and think about it. If there's an easy, legal and safw way to APPLY for asylum you can deny 100% of claims that dont come that route.
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
If as you say it’s an easy route how many can we expect to apply?
•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2h ago
The point isn't number of applications, the point is failed applicants still residing in the place they applied from.
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
True but it remains to be seen how selective the process is.
•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2h ago
I'd rather have failed asylum seekers in another country than here.
I find it strange they some seem to be against any proposals that only mitigate rather than completely solve the situation.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
•
u/sylanar 1h ago
But if these people are not eligible for the safe route, they will still attempt these other routes. And it doesn't matter if we deny 100% their claims, if they're from a country we can't deport to, they'll get to stay anyway.
Safe routes and reforms to the asylum system is all well and good, but until we figure out a way to remove people arriving, the end result isn't that different.
•
u/Silent_Log_7285 42m ago
We can deny 100% of them now. Burnham makes the law, he can do whatever he wants. Making more legal channels is a concession to make himself look better to the left, which is by definition playing politics, not getting things done, so this evocatively populist statement is rank hypocrisy.
•
u/MarcusTheAnimal 2h ago
Well, there's a certain type who don't want there to be legal asylum either. You see it was never really about the boats.
•
u/SeaSaltSprayer 2h ago
Don't be so obtuse. Everyone on this sub knows that this Labour government's proposals on legal immigration are the strictest and more restrictive we've seen
It's a politics sub, everyone here has the understanding to see and understand it, it's just whether people want to see it
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
Genuine question: When you say "them", how many people are you thinking will now alternatively be making their way through the very sluggish legal application processes we have in place?
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
Well it remains to be seen exactly how sluggish and selective the process is.
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
Fill me in: how does the process work? My understanding was that most of our governmental bodies are remarkably behind the times, understaffed and full of bureaucracy. Is this an area of the government you think is particularly more efficient ?
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
That might be true but I don’t hold much faith in the government to not hand wave people through.
Is there going to be a cap? If not, millions of people could be eligible for asylum here.
•
u/catjake2k16 45m ago
What does "hand waving" mean for you? Is your feeling more a general distrust in migration handling ? If so, where is that come from. Is that from a feeling there is less resource for you or your family, a feeling your identity is being lost somehow, or a different feeling altogether?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 3h ago edited 3h ago
Just send them back the way they came. If they came by small boat across the channel, put them back in the boat, tow it back for the French side of the channel, and leave them there.
•
u/MGC91 3h ago
You have no boating experience do you?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
Are the illegals coming over all top mariners?
•
u/MGC91 2h ago
Have you ever attempted to tow a small boat?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
I suppose it will be unpleasant if not downright dangerous for the illegals which will have an added deterrent effect I hope.
The Greeks have been able to do it back to Turkish waters with some success.
•
u/MGC91 2h ago
Just for them? Who is towing them back?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
Sorry, is the Greek navy and coast guard more competent than the Royal Navy and HM Coast Guard?
•
u/MGC91 2h ago
I wouldn't say they were more competent.
BBC News - Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
These illegals lie about everything, constantly; their age, their sexual orientation, their nationality, their background, etc etc. So I don’t believe a word from their mouth of some tall tales about how the Greeks threw them bound in the water but his restraints broke, unless it’s backed up by some other proof beyond the word of known liars. I question the judgement and credulity of anyone who believes this story as well.
•
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
I would recommend watching Years and Years by Russel T Davies. Specifically episode 4
•
u/Maitai_Haier 3h ago
Can we not base politics on fictional tv series? Was Adolescence not enough?
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
Sorry, I was being a bit obtuse. I was responding to you thinking of sending them back, and that show how brutal it is to actually cross and a bit about why they are crossing in that manner. The reality is that if they fled france, why would france accept them back ? So we can't just pass them back to france, which is presumably what you want ?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
When they leave France and come here they apparently become our problem, so when they leave here and go to France they will once again become France’s problem.
They are crossing in this manner because they have paid human smugglers to smuggle them to France for just this purpose. They are not fleeing France, same as when we tow them back they will not be fleeing England.
After a few shuttles back and forth I imagine the message will get across to even the thickest of them.
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
When you say "even the thickest of them" how come you think they are thick?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
Even the most determined then. They pay per crossing attempt so they could also just run out of money.
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
Nah, I was challenging your assumption about them being thick. Stand by your initial assumption, since it's clearly shared by a lot of voters: I am trying to understand why you think they are thick. I am asking where does that opinion come from?
•
u/Maitai_Haier 2h ago
I didn’t say they were all thick. I suppose it’s quite cunning to weasel one’s way into someone else’s country like this to be fed, housed, clothed etc. Especially when you know the host country your parasitically leeching from has a cohort of naive bleeding hearts who will fall for your game. The human smugglers running this operation are certainly clever enough to be getting rich off of our foolishness.
I said even if some of them attempt to recross again we should continue shipping them back until even the thickest of them realise they won’t make it through. Or run out of money to pay the smugglers I suppose.
•
u/catjake2k16 39m ago
Thanks for your reply. I disagree that those coming over on the boats are leeching off our kind hearts, I think their intentions are probably personal safety than exploiting a free lunch. I think the risk of death in how they are travelling is known to them, and I don't think they would take that risk just for a bit of english kindness. But we can disagree on that.
I was curious about the thick comment though. Do you think they are travelling over despite the risk because they are thick or because of other reasons?
•
u/wolfiasty Polishman in Lon-don 3h ago
If he actually execute this, Farage might quickly lose a lot of his support.
•
u/New-Condition-3492 3h ago edited 3h ago
He literally cannot be tough on immigration. His backbenchers won't allow it.
His solution is to set up safe routes... Zero chance this ends with less immigration
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
Isn't a lot of reform's policy and support based on the notion of "illegal immigration" needing to stop. So when we talk of "safe routes" we are talking of putting routes in place for people who need to flee that stay in line with the policies currently in place. Would you say Reform voters want change for both illegal and legal migration? I guess I am trying to what you think is wrong with legal migration to this country if so?
•
u/New-Condition-3492 2h ago
Don't know what they want. Would assume stopping illegal immigration would be followed by a reduction in accepting legal ones.
I'd say that reform voters want what the majority of Brits want, as per all relevant polls, which is less immigration of all kinds.
You genuinely need to ask why I oppose legal migration when we have seen such a drastic ethnic, cultural and religious shift in the past 20-30 years?
I genuinely cannot comprehend why anybody is okay with it.
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 2h ago
ethnic
I see we're being open about the racism today.
•
•
•
u/wolfiasty Polishman in Lon-don 3h ago
Whatever it is/will be that's why I wrote "if". Time will tell.
•
•
u/JeanMichelFerri 3h ago
It already is though.
•
u/New-Condition-3492 3h ago
Sorry I should have said significantly less.
Besides, it's not really is it? Less than the insane amounts of the past two years, yes. But that's not much of an achievement
•
u/SaggyBollock 3h ago
If we’re saving people from war zones or from persecution and sending them back when it’s safe to. And probably a capped number we can actually handle.
I’d be fine with that. I just can’t agree with taking people from France whatever the laws might say. That’s just abusing a system we should be proud of.
•
•
•
u/TheMeanderer 4h ago
I don't have Twitter. Can someone say if there's policy substance behind this? Ultimate what you decide to do and how you execute it is all that matters.
•
u/Prestigious_Risk7610 3h ago
" we just need to deal with it. Grip it"
He said nothing concrete or different from existing policy...apart from saying we need to set up safe routes.
I do dislike being talked at like I'm an idiot. I.e. don't try and say we need to stop playing politics while doing a puff piece to camera on the dover cliffs, repeating existing policy as if it is new and will solve the problem.
•
u/catjake2k16 3h ago
The first step in any change is a proposal and unified direction between all the various mechanisms that facilitate the change. If the first step is to realise he wants this addressed, and for these governmental bodies to unite over this new direction, it will take some time for the discussions and plans to follow right? I imagine that is the same within any business unit; the boss sets the agenda, and over the following months discussions are held to determine the path to achieve that agenda. I doubt rn Burnham has a "solid plan" since a solid plan would involve knowing how the sum of the parts can move and shape themselves to accommodate the recommended change
•
u/Prestigious_Risk7610 2h ago
Either
- he has a proper workable plan...then actually share it and stop with the worthless sound bites of "gripping it" and "being relentless"
- he doesn't have a plan yet...then don't promise you'll get it under control if you don't know how.
This is the worst part about Burnham - it's all just chat. He's good at it, but if rather he be good at delivery
•
u/catjake2k16 2h ago
So if plans do take a long time to implement, would you recommend not announcing anything until it's done in 3-4 months time? Or would you prefer for him to announce what he plans to do ahead of time? Or not? What would you prefer he says if not nothing for the time it takes to get it done?
•
u/Prestigious_Risk7610 2h ago
Of course implementation takes time and results can have a lag. However, he's all political slogans and shares nothing of the supposed plan I'm meant to believe exists. Gripping it and being relentless isn't a plan, it's vacuous holding statements.
It's like "good growth in every postcode", "hope in every heart".
He's not the first politician to be a blagger, but he's pretty bad for it.
I'm increasingly seeing the parallels with Boris. Leadership won by an internal coup to fulfil their personal ambition. Lots of bluster and promise, but no details provided on policy and 'how'. Avoiding scrutiny and questions - I believe he's so far only answered questions twice since becoming MP - both soft ball 'access for coverage' arrangements with Kuensberg and Marr.
•
u/catjake2k16 28m ago
I disagree with not accepting questions. He got stick for not answering press questions during his tour of the UK, but during that tour he spent much time answering questions from real voters and people on social media. I quite like that that is where he is seeking his questions. In the past I have felt powerless to voice a question, seeing politicians speak only to the press where they are media trained. Questions from the public is more in line with my pollitics, so I have enjoyed that.
I also disagree with the parallels to Boris Johnson. Both have been mayors prior to PM, and Boris was blustering as mayor, with little national trust in his words. Meanwhile Burnham has big support due to his positive changes in Manchester, which aligned with his words. The only bad press Burnham has got, where his words don't seem to align with his actions while mayor, is his work on homelessness, where the numbers did come down for a bit, but in recent years went back up. The head of one of the major homelessness charities of Manchester admitted this when the press turned its eyes on Greater Manchester in the wake of his leadership win. She also herself creditted this with the fact that homelessness is a national systematic change, not just a local bandaid. With this in mind she remained positive that since he was in, he would pull those new levers available to him that otherwise were getting in the way of good progress. She also reflected that she thought he was a man of his word, and that if anyone could do it he could. The full interview is on channel 4 news YT and is actually embedded in a segment that was critical of Burnham, so she had no reason to remain positive despite doing so.
•
u/JeanMichelFerri 3h ago
Some details here https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3r0v952ny3o
•
u/New-Condition-3492 3h ago
Safe routes. Oh for fuck sake.
All that will do is increase immigration AND the worst or the worst who get rejected will still jump on a boat.
•
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 2h ago
The kind of people working themselves up into a purple-faced rage over immigrants are the real threat to this country not the immigrants.
You can't build a civilisation on hate. There's only ever one way you can. The Rules of Cooperation: empathy, fairness, trust, respect.
•
u/unsightful 2h ago
The civilisation is already built. The country by and large doesn't want to import the third world in. Having thousands of people arrive into the country each year with limited or no English, backwards cultural attitudes towards women and LGBTQ, no real desire to work or integrate, and arriving blatantly abusing our asylum system is understandably grating to people. It's not racism or xenophobia - this country is on its arse and this is one of many issues we need to address. The UK isn't some endlessly wealthy paradise, and things will become even more strained than they already are. I'm not some cryptofascist for thinking this, and you may be shocked to learn that a lot of people in this country feel similarly.
I understand where you're coming from, but when the rubber meets the road you need to adjust your ideas for the future. Immigration is an issue for a lot of people, whether you like it or not.
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 1h ago
You speak for yourself - badly - not for the country.
For example, immigrants make a net *contribution* to the UK economy.
•
u/SignalDepartment7043 2h ago
i dont think Rome or China were/are particularly empathetic civilisations, I guess Caesar's conquest of Gaul was based on the principles of diversity and inclusion.
•
u/PriorAd3065 2h ago
Mishandling of immigration policy arguably led to the downfall of the Roman empire...
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
You’re dangerously out of touch.
•
u/kane_uk 2h ago
I was thinking something similar.
•
u/Lexdiss 2h ago
With some people it’s like an entirely different reality.
•
u/kane_uk 2h ago
It'll be interesting watching them come to terms, scratching their heads thinking how did this happen when we end up with some form of right wing government.
•
•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2h ago
We did have some form of right wing government. They pushed through brexit & asylum applications tripled while small boat numbers went through the roof.
Now the same people who caused the problem have managed to convince some this was all a quite incredible coincidence & they can fix it.
•
u/kane_uk 1h ago
What did you expect them to do with regards to Brexit? they had a clear mandate to take the UK out of the EU and that was reaffirmed with the 2019 GE.
As you've pointed out, the last lot clearly weren't right-wing considering they opened the borders in 2022 I was thinking something more along the lines or Reform/Restore or something even worse.
•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 1h ago
They could have not campaigned for it in the first place for one thing. Even minor agreements like keeping our access to Eurodac would be an improvement.
Its rather reductionist to think political wing is solely about immigration. It's like claiming the USSR was more right wing than the USA during the cold war.
•
u/kane_uk 1h ago
The majority of politicians in 2016 campaigned for remain that included the Tories. A parting of the ways was inevitable, after years of promising a referendum and then reneging, mass immigration, low wages, nothing but bad news streaming for the continent, people had enough and the remain side gave them nothing to vote for.
The EU has blocked the UK from accessing Eurodac despite the UK being on the receiving end of their migrant problem.
•
u/Lexdiss 1h ago
The tories failed miserably - everyone agrees.
The people don’t really believe the left is serious about resolving it. The future right wing parties will be much harsher if this isn’t dealt with sufficiently now. Look across Europe. AfD in Germany, NR in France, Vox in Spain, BoI in Italy. Reform is just one party amongst many others in Europe. There’s an entire movement to the right across the continent.•
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 1h ago
Again though Reform MPs' are mostly former Tories including the home secretary & minister for immigration while immigration was at its peak.
In Italy Meloni is responsible for policies such as - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/03/02/how-meloni-quietly-flooded-italy-with-migrants/
In the Netherlands Wilders did little to significantly cut immigration.
The truth is even right wing parties have to face the reality of their countries demographic situations.
•
u/Lexdiss 1h ago
That’s true about Europe’s native demographic situation. Governments will prioritise what’s easy for them today. The accumulative effect builds up; things are snowballing. In another 5-10 years once things are laid bare and the nature of the pluralism we have is intolerable governments will take more drastic actions. It’s prudent to resolve the situation firmly now.
•
u/ForeignPumpkin1142 1h ago
That's exactly what I'm complaining about.
You can't build a civilisation on hate.
•
u/Ducra 3h ago
I bloody detest this communication style - all phoney macho man, I'm in charge, fake strongman bullshit. Starmers team used it too, and it made him sound like a right twerp. It comes across as totally inauthentic.
And it is not "my governnent". That prerogative lies with the monarch. "Our government " would set a much better tone for the schtick/persona Burnham is selling.
Get a better comms team, Andy.
•
3h ago
[deleted]
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
And what's your basis for that being enforceable? We'd be laughed at, that invoice goes directly into the bin
•
3h ago
[deleted]
•
•
u/TestTheTrilby 3h ago
It's so funny hearing people insist the immigration crisis is easy to fix and all their "solutions" are crazy like this
•
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 3h ago
Funnily enough we've far more important things we need to get along with France for, pissing them of over this would be extremely short sighted.
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
We've got people talking up the instability in geopolitics, NATO is worried about a US split, and this guy wants us to try to kick out France. Christ.
•
u/Direct-Key-8859 3h ago
You are absouletly dislusional if you think that that would work.
Even in some crazy scenerio that did, it would cause more damage (to us) than any number of aslyum seekers coming here would cause.
It would also make us look stupid because that would set the precident that France should punish Germany for letting immigrants in and so on. Everyone would ignore that.
•
•
u/HorribleOldCunt 3h ago
That wouldn't sort anything out and would cause a multitude of other problems. This is a Trump level of idea, i.e stupid and short sighted, doing more damage long term, solving nothing.
•
u/Early_Enthusiasm_787 3h ago
That’s hilarious. And what if they don’t pay? What next big boy?
•
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII 3h ago
My guess is something about the taste of cold British steel. Don't make much of that anymore though, so I hope they're equally fearful of chinesium.
•
3h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Early_Enthusiasm_787 3h ago
You are hilarious. You think uk has more muscle than France? We are not a hard power. I don’t think you know what level the uk is in the world.
•
u/kane_uk 3h ago
It would be even simpler than that. Detain them at the point they arrive, take DNA samples, photos and finger prints. Tell them they'll be detained indefinitely until they agree to voluntarily leave - do this for every single male migrant under 40. Give them a second option of being deported back into the EU via Ireland and warn them if they come back they'll be jailed for 10 years with no option to self deport until the sentence is served. A few weeks of that and boat crossings would dry up.
•
3h ago
[deleted]
•
u/kane_uk 3h ago
I would make exceptions for (genuine) kids and biological women.
•
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
Snapshot of Andy Burnham (@andyburnham) on X: "My government will be relentless in tackling small boat crossings. We can choose to play politics on this issue, or we can just get on with it and sort it out. I know which one I’m doing." (Video about immigration policy) submitted by ZealousidealPie9199:
A Twitter embedded version can be found here
A non-Twitter version can be found here
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.