[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Thunder Bolt]

No worries.

Personally the problem and blame lies solely with the government. They’ve underfunded government departments for far too long as you wont fix any issue with reactionary nonsense like this.

The UK, needs to work with the EU to devise a united strategy and undertake a consistent framework.

We had an agreement called the Dublin agreement but it was dumped during the Withdrawal agreement which is why the boats have increased dramatically since 2018.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Good questions!

- According to the info on the Govt website, the reason for the relatively high grant rate in the UK is that we have a greater proportion of asylum-seekers from the most dangerous countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea). So we're not necessarily being more generous (or humane), it's just we get fewer "undeserving" cases.

- One of the key differences between the UK and almost all other countries in Europe is that you need to cross the sea to get here. So other countries automatically have safer routes (even for Greece, where many arrivals come by boat, there is a land border with Turkey that can be crossed - albeit with difficulty).

It would be interesting to see whether we are getting a higher proportion of Afghans, Sudanese, Iran etc compared to the EU. I wouldn’t be surprised given the links we’ve had with these nations.

I am surprised we get so many Albanians. Albanians do not need visas to visit Schengen nations as visitors, but with ID cards being the norm for EU nations, we wont see much illegal working.

If we started offering a temporary worker scheme for Albanians, that would see the end of Albanians entering clandesinely and it would allow job vacancies to be filled.

 

[BadFish]

Yes we are an island. As are many other nations.

Do you know which island nations and non-island nations offer legal routes for people to claim outside their territory or issue visas to people to allow them to travel to their own territory to claim asylum?

I think the short answer is that most don't need to. This is because they accept the legality of people turning up to claim asylum.

The slightly longer answer is that there are mechanisms through refugee camps throughout the world that give people access to different countries around the world. I'm not totally across this so I am prepared to be corrected but I have assumed that these are the mechanisms that the government have closed.

 

[Randy McNob]

Just to remind you, we're an island!!!

why should being an island have anything to do with our international obligations to treaties we have signed up to? Especially since we are far more responsble for the displacement of those people than any other European country

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Only days before?

Im sure there will be many others with the same view as you on both sides of politics- voting for their party regardless of what is in the manifesto

I'd certainly vote against the tories because of what is in their manifesto (well, in their current policies - their manifesto is likely to be thin and gimmicky). I have had too many years of their rubbish governments to not even entertain giving them another go. Regardless of my general preference for Labour (who look very decent right now (post Jezza).

So if Labour don't provide you with sufficient detail before the election you'll do what? Vote for more of the present shit show? Or do a protest vote and back the liberals?

 

[Berty23]

the real mind bender for some is that the refugees coming on boats are not “taking an illegal route” they can get here however they want. It is not illegal to do so. The illegal bit is the people charging them to do it but the actual refugees are not illegal immigrants because refugees can enter how they like.

 

[The Fits]

Walker is right in the above video. Tories are getting away, continually, with saying the refugees are coming here illegally. That they are criminals. That's simply not the case. Everybody has a right to seek asylum, that isn't a crime. It seems mad that it has to be said and them getting away with this kind of language, unchallenged, is very, very dangerous.
Edit: apologies @Berty23 for basically repeating your point a few minutes later

 

[jcdenton08]

It is already illegal for immigrants to enter the UK without a visa or special permission. Arriving on a small boat is neither of these things.

There needs to be a proper processing centre and the government needs to bring the acceptance rate down and in line with the rest of Europe, working on a fair but robust framework of what Britain needs balanced against ethical desire to “take our fair share”.

The UK needs working migrants, who are proficient in the language with clean criminal records and who will contribute to - rather than burden - the nation.

 

[drew]

why should being an island have anything to do with our international obligations to treaties we have signed up to? Especially since we are far more responsble for the displacement of those people than any other European country

Don't disagree with you at all. I was replying to worthingseagull's comment about safe routes. Damn sight easier to cross a land border than a water one. This government have pretty much eliminated all safe routes hence the boats.

 

[drew]

It is already illegal for immigrants to enter the UK without a visa or special permission. Arriving on a small boat is neither of these things.

There needs to be a proper processing centre and the government needs to bring the acceptance rate down and in line with the rest of Europe, working on a fair but robust framework of what Britain needs balanced against ethical desire to “take our fair share”.

The UK needs working migrants, who are proficient in the language with clean criminal records and who will contribute to - rather than burden - the nation.

Out of interest, is there any evidence that migrants, once processed and accepted, are a burden to the nation? I agree with you in that we need to process them quicker but then once again that's a resource decision being made by this government.

 

[jcdenton08]

Out of interest, is there any evidence that migrants, once processed and accepted, are a burden to the nation? I agree with you in that we need to process them quicker but then once again that's a resource decision being made by this government.

It depends on the source when it comes to numbers as naturally it’s impossible to know, since there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the UK. Without documents and census it’s largely guesstimates from everyone right down to the government.

It’s absolutely the government’s fault. Lack of resources and funding, gross negligence and now a very likely illegal policy being forced through to seem tough, when they’ve played a huge part in causing this mess.

That said, I don’t think it’s even up for debate that illegal immigrants come with a cost. Direct costs (processing/asylum hotels/feeding and watering/security and policing/transportation/healthcare) as well as indirect costs like loss of tax revenue from being undeclared workers, use of tax and NI-paid facilities/services/benefits which haven’t been paid for.

These are rightly absorbed by the tax payer for genuine asylum seekers, in order to allow them to transition to British life, learn the language, gain employment and start giving back in taxes what has been spent on them.

The quantity and speed of this process along with government incompetence has made this an issue which does need addressing though, even if it gets people a little squeamish on both sides of the political divide.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It depends on the source when it comes to numbers as naturally it’s impossible to know, since there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the UK. Without documents and census it’s largely guesstimates from everyone right down to the government.

It’s absolutely the government’s fault. Lack of resources and funding, gross negligence and now a very likely illegal policy being forced through to seem tough, when they’ve played a huge part in causing this mess.

That said, I don’t think it’s even up for debate that illegal immigrants come with a cost. Direct costs (processing/asylum hotels/feeding and watering/security and policing/transportation/healthcare) as well as indirect costs like loss of tax revenue from being undeclared workers, use of tax and NI-paid facilities/services/benefits which haven’t been paid for.

These are rightly absorbed by the tax payer for genuine asylum seekers, in order to allow them to transition to British life, learn the language, gain employment and start giving back in taxes what has been spent on them.

The quantity and speed of this process along with government incompetence has made this an issue which does need addressing though, even if it gets people a little squeamish on both sides of the political divide.

How do you know there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the country? If they are undocumented, then how do you count them? They can’t access health care or benefits because they’re undocumented.

People arriving in the boats claim asylum when they arrive, so are documented from that point onwards. They are counted, because the press report their numbers.

Nobody is denying there are illegal immigrants in this country, but usually it’s those who overstay their visas, or sneak in without claiming asylum.
Don’t confuse the two.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It depends on the source when it comes to numbers as naturally it’s impossible to know, since there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the UK. Without documents and census it’s largely guesstimates from everyone right down to the government.

It’s absolutely the government’s fault. Lack of resources and funding, gross negligence and now a very likely illegal policy being forced through to seem tough, when they’ve played a huge part in causing this mess.

That said, I don’t think it’s even up for debate that illegal immigrants come with a cost. Direct costs (processing/asylum hotels/feeding and watering/security and policing/transportation/healthcare) as well as indirect costs like loss of tax revenue from being undeclared workers, use of tax and NI-paid facilities/services/benefits which haven’t been paid for.

These are rightly absorbed by the tax payer for genuine asylum seekers, in order to allow them to transition to British life, learn the language, gain employment and start giving back in taxes what has been spent on them.

The quantity and speed of this process along with government incompetence has made this an issue which does need addressing though, even if it gets people a little squeamish on both sides of the political divide.

Tories don't want to spend any money on dealing with immigration (by whatever route) because they fear that if they increase public spending on dealing with 'foringers' this will alienate their white-van-man and Mumsnet-femail bedrock support. This is a bizarre fact. Because by not spending what is needed to make things better....they just get worse. Fancy that?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How do you know there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the country? If they are undocumented, then how do you count them? They can’t access health care or benefits because they’re undocumented.

People arriving in the boats claim asylum when they arrive, so are documented from that point onwards. They are counted, because the press report their numbers.

Nobody is denying there are illegal immigrants in this country, but usually it’s those who overstay their visas, or sneak in without claiming asylum.
Don’t confuse the two.

I would conceded that the Albanian gang racket is probably (though not certainly) an additional (and recent) factor. Whether the Albanian bogey man is real or not, it is entirely the product of dismal, footling, incompetent tory policy. They must be voted out. It is our civic duty to ensure this happens

 

[BadFish]

I am sure that we can all agree on the fact that the Conservatives have had 13 years of claiming to be dealing with this situation without making any improvements for anyone.

They make a lot of noise about being the party to deal with immigration and asylum seekers but the square root of all their efforts is f*** all.

It is an issue that serves they well in terms of getting votes. One has to wonder if they really have the motivation to put in place workable solutions or would rather pander to the masses with harsh systems that work for no-one.

The similarities between this speech and plan and Pritti Patel's from years ago are so similar, surely alarm bells are ringing.

After 13 years they are either incapable of making the system work or they don't want. Why anyone is willing to give them another try is beyond me.

 

[nicko31]

I am sure that we can all agree on the fact that the Conservatives have had 13 years of claiming to be dealing with this situation without making any improvements for anyone.

They make a lot of noise about being the party to deal with immigration and asylum seekers but the square root of all their efforts is f*** all.

It is an issue that serves they well in terms of getting votes. One has to wonder if they really have the motivation to put in place workable solutions or would rather pander to the masses with harsh systems that work for no-one.

The similarities between this speech and plan and Pritti Patel's from years ago are so similar, surely alarm bells are ringing.

After 13 years they are either incapable of making the system work or they don't want. Why anyone is willing to give them another try is beyond me.

They have 80% of the media on their side, they have infiltrated the BBC and with Voter ID have also compromised the voting system in their favour.

At this time Labour look likely to form the next election but its by no means a given. In the meantime we're fast sliding towards a non-EU version of Orban's Hungary.

They are not finished the judiciary next, then go after Ofcom...

 

[Randy McNob]

We're led to believe Lineker's comments are 'out of step' with public opinon and the so called 'will of the British people' support the governments actions

lineker has 8.7m followers on Twitter
Nigel Farage 1.7m

 

[nicko31]

We're led to believe Lineker's comments are 'out of step' with public opinon and the so called 'will of the British people' support the governments actions

lineker has 8.7m followers on Twitter
Nigel Farage 1.7m

That what worries them and has more reach than an PM past or present.

There is talk of the Beeb sacking GL, he's not friggin Nick Robinson and his comments were on his own twitter. He doesn't exclusively work for the Beeb FFS

 

[Hugo Rune]

That what worries them and has more reach than an PM past or present.

There is talk of the Beeb sacking GL, he's not friggin Nick Robinson and his comments were on his own twitter. He doesn't exclusively work for the Beeb FFS

Jake Humphrey has been at is too:

Gary Lineker: Why his comments present a problem for the BBC

How the presenter's remarks, comparing UK asylum policy to 1930s Germany, place the BBC in a pickle.

www.bbc.co.uk

This bit of the article interested me:

“The director general, Tim Davie, has made impartiality a key platform of his leadership……Davie has previously said: "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."

Perhaps he should be thinking about this view:

"If you’ve stood to become a partisan Conservative councillor and been the deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party in the 1990’s; that is a valid career path. But you should not, at a later date, try to be seen as impartial working as the Director General at the BBC."

Let’s not forget how he got the job, the BBC we’re picking on poor Tories:

“Davie took over as acting Director-General on 11 November 2012 following the resignation of George Entwistle in the wake of the Newsnight broadcast which did not name any individual but which led to Internet speculation which incorrectly identified Conservative Lord McAlpine in the North Wales child abuse case.” Wiki

 

[nicko31]

Jake Humphrey has been at is too:

Gary Lineker: Why his comments present a problem for the BBC

How the presenter's remarks, comparing UK asylum policy to 1930s Germany, place the BBC in a pickle.

www.bbc.co.uk

This bit of the article interested me:

“The director general, Tim Davie, has made impartiality a key platform of his leadership……Davie has previously said: "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."

Perhaps he should be thinking about this view:

"If you’ve stood to become a partisan Conservative councillor and been the deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party in the 1990’s; that is a valid career path. But you should not, at a later date, try to be seen as impartial working as the Director General at the BBC."

Let’s not forget how he got the job, the BBC we’re picking on poor Tories:

“Davie took over as acting Director-General on 11 November 2012 following the resignation of George Entwistle in the wake of the Newsnight broadcast which did not name any individual but which led to Internet speculation which incorrectly identified Conservative Lord McAlpine in the North Wales child abuse case.” Wiki

Quite...

And lets not even talk about the "current" BBC Chairman that arranged an £800k loan for the former disgraced PM but one because he personal life was so chaotic he couldn't keep this personal finances in order