Morgan McSweeney gone - What Now For Number 10?

Mollygo

eazybee
I like statistics. They can be presented to back up whatever point is being made.

😂

Mollygo

eazybee
I like statistics. They can be presented to back up whatever point is being made.

I do too, when they present a coherent picture.

JR was saying what a great deal of the electorate think.An exaggeration and his figures weren’t accurate but the general message of far too many not working and on benefits and far too much immigration to the UK was spot on.Even the government is trying to reduce both things so for Starmer to come out with mealy mouth censures is quite ridiculous.

eazybee

Umm; first click on Google:

Based on recent reports and government data regarding UK immigration, the claim that exactly 36,000 "illegals" were deported last year appears to be a misunderstanding or a mixture of different data points.
Here is the breakdown of the current situation as of early 2026:
Channel Crossings: In 2024, approximately 36,816 people crossed the English Channel in small boats. This number is sometimes confused with removals, but it actually represents the number of arrivals.
Returns vs. Deportations: The UK government has reported an increase in returns. For instance, in the second half of 2024 and early 2025, there was a total of about 16,400 returns (including both voluntary and enforced).
Voluntary vs. Enforced: A significant portion of reported "removals" are voluntary returns, rather than enforced deportations. Official figures for enforced returns are generally much lower than total returns.
Recent Claims: Government figures and political commentary in 2025 have cited higher numbers of "removals," often including voluntary departures, which critics have argued are lower than the rhetoric suggests.
Therefore, while the number of people arriving via small boats in 2024 was around 36,000, 36,000 people were not deported or removed in that same timeframe.

I think you should check your facts, David.

The fact is that Voluntary returns are paid £3000 to turn themselves in to return to their home country, far it has cost £54m presumably including transport costs.

10.39- 'Starmer's reaction to Jim Ratcliffe's statement says so much about his blinkered attitude. Instead of sitting down and discussing things, he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as racist'.

Rubbish. Starmer was not being "blinkered". Along with many others in politics ( not just Labour Party) , sports, Manchester residents etc criticised Jim Radcliffe because of his comments about immigration were divisive and inflammatory. Radcliffe said that UK has been "colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean the population of the UK was 58million in 2020 and now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people".

David49 I agree with you Radcliffe should keep his mouth shut. He doesn't even pay UK taxes so that shows his values and how he personally does not want to contribute to UK society.

Immigration is nothing new. Manchester, like many cities has been a diverse city, with large proportion of immigrants following the Industrial revolution. I was born and bred there. Jim Radcliffe's Manchester United football club was bombed in WW2 and rebuilt by Manchester's immigrant population and brought unity to the city.

eazybee
I like statistics. They can be presented to back up whatever point is being made.

It’s always better to argue a case with statistics that make sense though, and these don’t. Once we have the validated figures for 2925, which is usually around the end of June, the true figures for each category will be published, until then take it with a pinch of salt. It doesn’t matter whether you hate Starmer or not, it’s irrelevant, because the same caveats apply whoever is in government.

If I am attempting to prove anything at all, it is that quoted statistics are generally skewed, and that was simply the first response that came up in answer to my query.

Plus, that at present, I do not trust the Labour Party at all, based on the behaviour of its Leader.

I’m not sure that what you’re saying proves anything either, because the figures here are not for last year specifically, they are a mixture between 2024 and 2025, so it’s just confusing?

Umm; first click on Google:

Based on recent reports and government data regarding UK immigration, the claim that exactly 36,000 "illegals" were deported last year appears to be a misunderstanding or a mixture of different data points.
Here is the breakdown of the current situation as of early 2026:
Channel Crossings: In 2024, approximately 36,816 people crossed the English Channel in small boats. This number is sometimes confused with removals, but it actually represents the number of arrivals.
Returns vs. Deportations: The UK government has reported an increase in returns. For instance, in the second half of 2024 and early 2025, there was a total of about 16,400 returns (including both voluntary and enforced).
Voluntary vs. Enforced: A significant portion of reported "removals" are voluntary returns, rather than enforced deportations. Official figures for enforced returns are generally much lower than total returns.
Recent Claims: Government figures and political commentary in 2025 have cited higher numbers of "removals," often including voluntary departures, which critics have argued are lower than the rhetoric suggests.
Therefore, while the number of people arriving via small boats in 2024 was around 36,000, 36,000 people were not deported or removed in that same timeframe.

I think you should check your facts, David.

Starmer's reaction to Jim Ratcliffe's statement says so much about his blinkered attitude. Instead of sitting down and discussing things, he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as racist.
I'm sure there are plenty of decent Labour MPs who take their responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, they are classed as incompetents because of their leader. This is why we need a different system. Get rid of the party system altogether and elect people on their merits.

Ratcliffe should keep his mouth shut the growth in migrants has happened over 70 years Its not this government that has caused it. Starmer is doing a lot more to reduce the abuse of the system than the Tories, 36000 illegals were deported last year.

^That evil old racist'?
Really ?

I would think that Starmer's instant retort showed how rudderless he is without someone to tell him what to do.
After his lamentable performance over the past week fighting to keep his job in an out of control party, he is the last person to tell someone to apologise for opinions he chooses to express.
I just heard someone on the radio say, he should leave politics to politicians.
So none of u, apparently, s should express a political opinion at all.

The man is inept and cloth eared. His success as Director of Public Prosecutions was due to his ability to convince everyone that anything controversial never touched his desk.

I have read opinions of many actual lawyers whose judgement of Starmer as DPP is completely different from yours, MOnica.

Grantanow

The Labour MPs are not lemmings: they don't want to run off the cliff. Having a leadership ekection prior to the byelection and Council elections wd be a disaster. Even if they do badly then there is no obvious replacement, certainly no-one willing to preciptate a leadership battle with Starmer standing as a candidate.

If Starmer throws the towel in there will be plenty of candidates willing to cut each others throats, he needs a success soon if he's going to survive.

MaizieD

Though, I think No.10 did well yesterday. The response to that evil old racist, non resident billionaire telling him he should apologise for his unpleasant comments, came much faster than it would have done in McSweeny's day.

Too fast, it made it look like a game of wackamole.

The man is inept and cloth eared. His success as Director of Public Prosecutions was due to his ability to convince everyone that anything controversial never touched his desk. Nothing to tarnish the varnish. As Prime Minister that doesn't work, and neither does he. He should go and let someone with more experience of dealing with difficult issues take his place.

Though, I think No.10 did well yesterday. The response to that evil old racist, non resident billionaire telling him he should apologise for his unpleasant comments, came much faster than it would have done in McSweeny's day.

Grantanow

The Labour MPs are not lemmings: they don't want to run off the cliff. Having a leadership ekection prior to the byelection and Council elections wd be a disaster. Even if they do badly then there is no obvious replacement, certainly no-one willing to preciptate a leadership battle with Starmer standing as a candidate.

They're just holding their fire. Wait until the council elections are over.

The Labour MPs are not lemmings: they don't want to run off the cliff. Having a leadership ekection prior to the byelection and Council elections wd be a disaster. Even if they do badly then there is no obvious replacement, certainly no-one willing to preciptate a leadership battle with Starmer standing as a candidate.

Britain is on its knees? Where?

Elections being cancelled? Where?

This forum is so funny sometimes!

petra

Fancythat
Have you heard the expression, when in a hole, stop digging ?
Now is the time to put the spade back in the shed.

Ha ha!
You clearly have not read all my posts today!

I remarked on that being said, either on this thread or another!
I knew it would be said!

M0nica

DaisyAnneReturns

ronib

Will a change of government be enough to stop the decline in local urban village life? Wouldn’t it be so fantastic if for once the UK began to thrive rather than dive?

Is any government to blame for the "decline in local urban village life"? I know of no proof that it is. Add the FACT that the depopulation of villages or their absorption into sprawling industrial centres started during the Industrial Revolution, and I have to wonder how any recent government can be blamed.

I am not sure there has been any decline in local urban village life. If you mean that most village dwellers work elsewhere, that is because if the only occupants of village houses were those working in agriculture, then most of our villages would be derelict.

Technology means that the number of people working in agriculture has declined and those working in offices, and now, also from home has grown enormously. Why should they not live in villages, I have spent the last 30 years living in a village and it was a lovely sociable place, we all greeted people in the street, had a lot of different activity groups. Because the new houses that were built attracted young families, we also still had a school and a village shop and post office and being on a busroute between local towns and the railway station, we had plenty of public transport.

Population of villages in this area is predominantly retired professionals or workers earning above average wages, there is very little well paid work locally. Larger villages with social houses or shared ownership, even with lower housing cost work travel is a problem
Every house will have 2 cars because even if one partner is not working a second car is needed because services, shops, schools are so limited.
There are bus services but they cannot match the hours that workers have to do these days, so to have a reasonable lifestyle workers have to live close to towns where the work is

Fancythat
Have you heard the expression, when in a hole, stop digging ?
Now is the time to put the spade back in the shed.