The Labour Government

[bluenova]

I’d be genuinely shocked if Reform won. They’ll have a problem with converting those who poll as voting for reform in to actual votes at the ballot box. They are perhaps a bit politically disenfranchised so not nailed on to turn up at the booth. My prediction is something like 34% Labour, 31% reform.

It’s not rocket science to expect reform to do better here compared to their GE showing. If Labour do end up polling significantly less than they did in last years GE and reform polling significantly better then understanding the causes of that will be interesting. Did Labour lose votes to reform? Did reform get votes from the tories? Did reform mobilise new voters? Did labour voters stay at home? Etc etc.

I’m of the opinion that Reform have a similar problem to Labour under Corbyn in that they have a ceiling to how “popular” they can be with their policies and message. The causes of this result might challenge that opinion.

I don’t disagree that whatever the result Labour have plenty of time to turn it around - let’s face if they’ve been their own worst enemies.

Given Labour's current polling (and lack of enthusiasm for them), and the reasons for the by election, I'd imagine a pretty low turn out, which obviously helps Reform. Not sure it means much ultimately.

It's going to be pretty much 4 years to the day since the Hartlepool by election, which was a disaster for Labour. The Tories had their best vote share in forty years, and yet three years later, they fell to their worst ever defeat.

I think that suggests that it's probably best not to write off anyone, and there's still a good chance that the Tories are Labour's main opponent at the next election.

 

[meltonblue]

I’d be genuinely shocked if Reform won. They’ll have a problem with converting those who poll as voting for reform in to actual votes at the ballot box. They are perhaps a bit politically disenfranchised so not nailed on to turn up at the booth. My prediction is something like 34% Labour, 31% reform.

It’s not rocket science to expect reform to do better here compared to their GE showing. If Labour do end up polling significantly less than they did in last years GE and reform polling significantly better then understanding the causes of that will be interesting. Did Labour lose votes to reform? Did reform get votes from the tories? Did reform mobilise new voters? Did labour voters stay at home? Etc etc.

I’m of the opinion that Reform have a similar problem to Labour under Corbyn in that they have a ceiling to how “popular” they can be with their policies and message. The causes of this result might challenge that opinion.

I don’t disagree that whatever the result Labour have plenty of time to turn it around - let’s face if they’ve been their own worst enemies.

Agree about their ceiling. Wouldn’t surprise me if they did win though, which I find pretty worrying.

 

[Hertzblue]

You can be as patronising as you like, because I think you're own view is simply overly cynical - naïvely so if you ask me ;)

I also don't want to sound patronising (I'm going to be, but appreciate your long response, so it's meant in a friendly manner) - however I see a lot of talk about the Bangladeshi community, yet, they're not a nationality that has any serious involvement in the channel boat crossings. Over the past few years, the boats have almost exclusively brought over people from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan. I would suggest that you check out some stats first, but I appreciate that you're not a fan.

The Bangladeshi community is a significant size in the UK, and has been for many decades - I'm not sure I'd be basing my knowledge of people from entirely different, mostly war-torn countries, making hazardous trips across the channel, with a completely different group of immigrants.

I've worked for years with plenty of vulnerable groups, including asylum seekers from a wide range of different countries, many of whom have come to the UK via illegal routes. My point was that asylum seekers aren't treated in a hugely different way to many other European countries, so the draw to the UK tends not to be down to detailed knowledge of the benefits system. If they just wanted housing and a small allowance, they'd stay in another country - they're mostly choosing the UK for other reasons. Your post seems to suggest that someone with a clipboard wandered around Calais, asking people to put their hands up if they know what PIP is, which again, sounds pretty naïve (sorry).

As for the main point - the UK generally takes less than their share of asylum seekers in the UK, and that number is relatively small in comparison with the overall population. It's not going anywhere, and we're never going to stop taking in refugees (I assume most people who have met more than a few refugees, wouldn't want to either). Some of the main reasons for the boat crossings increasing, is stronger controls at the official borders, and less cooperation with the EU, post Brexit. While it may be possible to make it harder for the gangs to operate, and we can work with the EU to minimise the risky crossings, I doubt we'll have a major reduction - and even if there were just 1000 asylum seekers a year, there would still likely be a need for housing. Bear in mind, that the rights of asylum seekers to do anything but sit around in state provided housing were gradually removed by the Tories. Add that to the fact that not much more than half a decade ago, there were only a few thousand who had to wait more than a year for claims to be decided - but that number has jumped tenfold, and you've got an issue that isn't going away within months, no matter how many gangs are smashed.

As I mentioned, these 5 year tenancies had been running for many years (so the ad is nothing new - it's just political mischief to highlight them as such), and the only way they wouldn't be needed, is if you expect asylum claims to drop to zero, and all outstanding claims to be decided immediately. It's the kind of thing that Andrew Neil would have pulled up a politician on, when he was a little more journalist, less angry old man.

ps. I don't doubt any of the comments you've made about your own experiences, and I'm not naïve about the fact that there is a large underground economy in the UK, or that there are people who take advantage of the system. I just think that Andrew Neil point is completely wrong.

Firstly , sticking on the original point of the Andrew Neil comment. You are correct in so far as that these Landlord contracts are not " new" as such. That isn't really the issue though.
Labour's manifesto promise was to have " Secure borders" and they would achieve this by ' Smashing the gangs" If you genuinely believed this policy was going to work , would you feel the need to offer 5-year contracts to landlords to house asylum seekers? We don't know how many they intend to offer but it would appear a substantial amount given the scale of the recruitment drive. Your point that the only scenario where this accommodation wouldn't be needed is if claims fell to zero and all outstanding claims were settled just makes no sense. You say yourself that some claims take over a year and that is true, but Labour also claimed that they were going to sort this, they are going to " restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly" and hire a thousand additional caseworkers to clear the backlog. Is it 5 years work ? I don't think so.
I think nearer reality is what you say yourself in respect of the crossings - " I doubt we'll have a major reduction" . I would go one further, - there will be no reduction at all, in fact as we have seen to date under this government, crossings will increase.
The gangs aren't being smashed, they wont be smashed and the government has no answer that is palatable to them. That is why they need a recruitment drive offering landlords very attractive terms for a 5-year deal. Starmer will then claim to have met at least one manifesto pledge in reducing reliance on hotels. The fact that may more thousands will be in taxpayer funded privately rented accommodation will be neither here nor there to them.
All whilst we currently have over 1.3 million on the social housing waiting list.
Going back to your reply to my post , I never suggested that Bangladeshis were a major factor in small boat crossings as I know that is not the case, the point I was trying to make is that this community and those that do play a major part in small boat crossings have a well-established and efficient network to process new arrivals through the benefit system to their mutual advantage. To suggest as you do that our benefits system is not a major driver in their decision to as you say yourself " risk their lives" crossing the channel is I maintain naive.
Here is what the long time Mayor of Calais has to say about it , I think she probably knows a bit more than both us .
One from the Guardian first so you know it must be right...


This is 11 years ago, she hasn't changed her opinion.

To suggest as you do that they are willing to die crossing the channel to see their uncles and cousins ?
Don't get me wrong , in some cases they may well be disappointed when they get here , but make no mistake, our Welfare state is the driver.

 

[blueinsa]

The majority is a castle built on sand. It was never a vote 'for' labour, just an utter rejection of the Tories.

We are about to see public sector pay rise awards and the reactions to them.

A summer of discontent could well spell the end for Reeves and Starmer.

 

[hilts]

Firstly , sticking on the original point of the Andrew Neil comment. You are correct in so far as that these Landlord contracts are not " new" as such. That isn't really the issue though.
Labour's manifesto promise was to have " Secure borders" and they would achieve this by ' Smashing the gangs" If you genuinely believed this policy was going to work , would you feel the need to offer 5-year contracts to landlords to house asylum seekers? We don't know how many they intend to offer but it would appear a substantial amount given the scale of the recruitment drive. Your point that the only scenario where this accommodation wouldn't be needed is if claims fell to zero and all outstanding claims were settled just makes no sense. You say yourself that some claims take over a year and that is true, but Labour also claimed that they were going to sort this, they are going to " restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly" and hire a thousand additional caseworkers to clear the backlog. Is it 5 years work ? I don't think so.
I think nearer reality is what you say yourself in respect of the crossings - " I doubt we'll have a major reduction" . I would go one further, - there will be no reduction at all, in fact as we have seen to date under this government, crossings will increase.
The gangs aren't being smashed, they wont be smashed and the government has no answer that is palatable to them. That is why they need a recruitment drive offering landlords very attractive terms for a 5-year deal. Starmer will then claim to have met at least one manifesto pledge in reducing reliance on hotels. The fact that may more thousands will be in taxpayer funded privately rented accommodation will be neither here nor there to them.
All whilst we currently have over 1.3 million on the social housing waiting list.
Going back to your reply to my post , I never suggested that Bangladeshis were a major factor in small boat crossings as I know that is not the case, the point I was trying to make is that this community and those that do play a major part in small boat crossings have a well-established and efficient network to process new arrivals through the benefit system to their mutual advantage. To suggest as you do that our benefits system is not a major driver in their decision to as you say yourself " risk their lives" crossing the channel is I maintain naive.
Here is what the long time Mayor of Calais has to say about it , I think she probably knows a bit more than both us .
One from the Guardian first so you know it must be right...
View attachment 154415
View attachment 154416
This is 11 years ago, she hasn't changed her opinion.
View attachment 154417
To suggest as you do that they are willing to die crossing the channel to see their uncles and cousins ?
Don't get me wrong , in some cases they may well be disappointed when they get here , but make no mistake, our Welfare state is the driver.

I think your are underestimating how great uncles can be, mine gave me a sherbert dip after crossing the M60 in rush hour to just say hello.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

We are about to see public sector pay rise awards and the reactions to them.

A summer of discontent could well spell the end for Reeves and Starmer.

Very hard to sell the need for additional taxation, cuts to spending and crap public sector pay rises at the same time as the burden of net zero and the alleged costs of housing immigrants and the need for increased defense spending.
Charity does not appear to start at home after all.
Government is about difficult choices, I think we all understand that, but priorities may not be shared by the electorate.

 

[bluenova]

Firstly , sticking on the original point of the Andrew Neil comment. You are correct in so far as that these Landlord contracts are not " new" as such. That isn't really the issue though.
Labour's manifesto promise was to have " Secure borders" and they would achieve this by ' Smashing the gangs" If you genuinely believed this policy was going to work , would you feel the need to offer 5-year contracts to landlords to house asylum seekers? We don't know how many they intend to offer but it would appear a substantial amount given the scale of the recruitment drive. Your point that the only scenario where this accommodation wouldn't be needed is if claims fell to zero and all outstanding claims were settled just makes no sense. You say yourself that some claims take over a year and that is true, but Labour also claimed that they were going to sort this, they are going to " restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly" and hire a thousand additional caseworkers to clear the backlog. Is it 5 years work ? I don't think so.
I think nearer reality is what you say yourself in respect of the crossings - " I doubt we'll have a major reduction" . I would go one further, - there will be no reduction at all, in fact as we have seen to date under this government, crossings will increase.
The gangs aren't being smashed, they wont be smashed and the government has no answer that is palatable to them. That is why they need a recruitment drive offering landlords very attractive terms for a 5-year deal. Starmer will then claim to have met at least one manifesto pledge in reducing reliance on hotels. The fact that may more thousands will be in taxpayer funded privately rented accommodation will be neither here nor there to them.
All whilst we currently have over 1.3 million on the social housing waiting list.
Going back to your reply to my post , I never suggested that Bangladeshis were a major factor in small boat crossings as I know that is not the case, the point I was trying to make is that this community and those that do play a major part in small boat crossings have a well-established and efficient network to process new arrivals through the benefit system to their mutual advantage. To suggest as you do that our benefits system is not a major driver in their decision to as you say yourself " risk their lives" crossing the channel is I maintain naive.
Here is what the long time Mayor of Calais has to say about it , I think she probably knows a bit more than both us .
One from the Guardian first so you know it must be right...
View attachment 154415
View attachment 154416
This is 11 years ago, she hasn't changed her opinion.
View attachment 154417
To suggest as you do that they are willing to die crossing the channel to see their uncles and cousins ?
Don't get me wrong , in some cases they may well be disappointed when they get here , but make no mistake, our Welfare state is the driver.

If you think the difference between out welfare state and those of other European countries is worth dying for, then I think you need to do a bit more research. Family definitely trumps that.

Using Natalie Bouchart as an example, is a bit like expecting Nigel Farage to have a balanced opinion on refugees. She's a right wing politician, whose focus is almost entirely anti-migrant. She opposed building the "wall of Calais", which would prevent migrants crossing via trucks (and ironically is the main reason for the increase in boat crossings), because her only priority is getting migrants out of Calais. She's a controversial character to say the least. The quotes are from a House of Commons committee hearing, and she claims in the same hearing, that migrants have heard they'll get £36 a week from the UK, and are desperate for this. When an MP points out that this is less than they'd get in France, she simply dismisses it.

As I said, the long explanation of the Bangladeshi community was completely irrelevant.

Not sure why it makes no sense to suggest that we'll always need to house refugees that have just arrived (and those ads are going to be running all the time, even if the numbers are dropping). If you're suggesting that we just shouldn't help anyone, then that's a different argument.

Ultimately, I really don't get the naïve statement. If the UK benefit system is at best comparable, and in most cases less generous than France, why is it naïve to say that's not the main reason people want to risk their lives on a small, overcrowded boat in the middle of the night? If it was UK benefits/housing v Nothing, then I could agree it's a difference, but it's not.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

If you think the difference between out welfare state and those of other European countries is worth dying for, then I think you need to do a bit more research. Family definitely trumps that.

Using Natalie Bouchart as an example, is a bit like expecting Nigel Farage to have a balanced opinion on refugees. She's a right wing politician, whose focus is almost entirely anti-migrant. She opposed building the "wall of Calais", which would prevent migrants crossing via trucks (and ironically is the main reason for the increase in boat crossings), because her only priority is getting migrants out of Calais. She's a controversial character to say the least. The quotes are from a House of Commons committee hearing, and she claims in the same hearing, that migrants have heard they'll get £36 a week from the UK, and are desperate for this. When an MP points out that this is less than they'd get in France, she simply dismisses it.

As I said, the long explanation of the Bangladeshi community was completely irrelevant.

Not sure why it makes no sense to suggest that we'll always need to house refugees that have just arrived (and those ads are going to be running all the time, even if the numbers are dropping). If you're suggesting that we just shouldn't help anyone, then that's a different argument.

Ultimately, I really don't get the naïve statement. If the UK benefit system is at best comparable, and in most cases less generous than France, why is it naïve to say that's not the main reason people want to risk their lives on a small, overcrowded boat in the middle of the night? If it was UK benefits/housing v Nothing, then I could agree it's a difference, but it's not.

You need a national ID card to claim anything in France including healthcare. In the UK you don't. That could be a reason for the difference.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Very hard to sell the need for additional taxation, cuts to spending and crap public sector pay rises at the same time as the burden of net zero and the alleged costs of housing immigrants and the need for increased defense spending.
Charity does not appear to start at home after all.
Government is about difficult choices, I think we all understand that, but priorities may not be shared by the electorate.

Politicians pay rises were not bad and recommended by some independent body.

All in it together.

 

[inbetween]

Very hard to sell the need for additional taxation, cuts to spending and crap public sector pay rises at the same time as the burden of net zero and the alleged costs of housing immigrants and the need for increased defense spending.
Charity does not appear to start at home after all.
Government is about difficult choices, I think we all understand that, but priorities may not be shared by the electorate.

I don't really understand this slogan of the burden of net zero because it's meaningless. Nobody is committed to an additional cost of net zero because the governments only mechanism to control energy costs is via a regulator, that's it. The government does not otherwise own any means of production of our energy to reduce costs.

Energy prices have to be viewed in the context of the Ukraine war because we burn a lot of gas for electricity and that war massively increased gas prices so energy prices followed suit. This still hasn't recovered because wholesale gas prices are still high, they're over 100% higher than 2020, this winter they were over 500% higher than 2020.

It is the price of wholesale gas and our exposure to global gas prices that is the problem. The only thing that Reform can do to solve this is to increase the use of renewables or start burning coal again but there are significant disadvantages to burning the level of coal needed to power the country. Do we want to choke on smog again?

 

[bluenova]

You need a national ID card to claim anything in France including healthcare. In the UK you don't. That could be a reason for the difference.

That's a good point. However, almost all of the people who crossed on boats last year claimed asylum, which would make them 'official' anyway. If you look at the countries they're coming from (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc.), that's not a surprise.

If they're going to claim asylum, they'd be official in France too.

I've seen some arguments about what happens if an asylum claim is dismissed, but the underground economy in France is likely bigger than the one in the UK.

 

[BobKowalski]

You need a national ID card to claim anything in France including healthcare. In the UK you don't. That could be a reason for the difference.

The main drivers are family and community. Also our language, culture and the British people are perceived as being more welcoming and tolerant than on mainland Europe. Despite all the rhetoric from the usual suspects we do assimilate immigrants better than most.

 

[stonerblue]

Firstly , sticking on the original point of the Andrew Neil comment. You are correct in so far as that these Landlord contracts are not " new" as such. That isn't really the issue though.
Labour's manifesto promise was to have " Secure borders" and they would achieve this by ' Smashing the gangs" If you genuinely believed this policy was going to work , would you feel the need to offer 5-year contracts to landlords to house asylum seekers? We don't know how many they intend to offer but it would appear a substantial amount given the scale of the recruitment drive. Your point that the only scenario where this accommodation wouldn't be needed is if claims fell to zero and all outstanding claims were settled just makes no sense. You say yourself that some claims take over a year and that is true, but Labour also claimed that they were going to sort this, they are going to " restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly" and hire a thousand additional caseworkers to clear the backlog. Is it 5 years work ? I don't think so.
I think nearer reality is what you say yourself in respect of the crossings - " I doubt we'll have a major reduction" . I would go one further, - there will be no reduction at all, in fact as we have seen to date under this government, crossings will increase.
The gangs aren't being smashed, they wont be smashed and the government has no answer that is palatable to them. That is why they need a recruitment drive offering landlords very attractive terms for a 5-year deal. Starmer will then claim to have met at least one manifesto pledge in reducing reliance on hotels. The fact that may more thousands will be in taxpayer funded privately rented accommodation will be neither here nor there to them.
All whilst we currently have over 1.3 million on the social housing waiting list.
Going back to your reply to my post , I never suggested that Bangladeshis were a major factor in small boat crossings as I know that is not the case, the point I was trying to make is that this community and those that do play a major part in small boat crossings have a well-established and efficient network to process new arrivals through the benefit system to their mutual advantage. To suggest as you do that our benefits system is not a major driver in their decision to as you say yourself " risk their lives" crossing the channel is I maintain naive.
Here is what the long time Mayor of Calais has to say about it , I think she probably knows a bit more than both us .
One from the Guardian first so you know it must be right...
View attachment 154415
View attachment 154416
This is 11 years ago, she hasn't changed her opinion.
View attachment 154417
To suggest as you do that they are willing to die crossing the channel to see their uncles and cousins ?
Don't get me wrong , in some cases they may well be disappointed when they get here , but make no mistake, our Welfare state is the driver.

Emergencee housing isnt just for asilum seekers

 

[Kompany Car]

I don't really understand this slogan of the burden of net zero because it's meaningless. Nobody is committed to an additional cost of net zero because the governments only mechanism to control energy costs is via a regulator, that's it. The government does not otherwise own any means of production of our energy to reduce costs.

Energy prices have to be viewed in the context of the Ukraine war because we burn a lot of gas for electricity and that war massively increased gas prices so energy prices followed suit. This still hasn't recovered because wholesale gas prices are still high, they're over 100% higher than 2020, this winter they were over 500% higher than 2020.

It is the price of wholesale gas and our exposure to global gas prices that is the problem. The only thing that Reform can do to solve this is to increase the use of renewables or start burning coal again but there are significant disadvantages to burning the level of coal needed to power the country. Do we want to choke on smog again?

The energy regulator is appointed by the secretary of state for Energy Security and Net Zero so by proxy the government is involved in setting the pricing structure, which is clearly broken by having the marginal generator setting the price.

I suppose they could change the pricing structure and maybe renationalise the 4 main gas generating plants (mostly owned by RWE a German company) to remove the leverage they have on the price.

 

[Don Karleone]

 

[BlueHammer85]

And? voters do this all the time to all parties. fair play she's going Green though and not using her protest vote for a bunch of racist Reform bellends.

 

[Don Karleone]

And? voters do this all the time to all parties. fair play she's going Green though and not using her protest vote for a bunch of racist Reform bellends.

Wouldn't they have done some research on which doors to knock? That woman was probably a Labour voter.

Agree with your second point.

 

[hilts]

And? voters do this all the time to all parties. fair play she's going Green though and not using her protest vote for a bunch of racist Reform bellends.

All the best people vote Green in my honest and unbiased opinion.

 

[BlueHammer85]

All the best people vote Green in my honest and unbiased opinion.

I can side with that.

 

[Hertzblue]

If you think the difference between out welfare state and those of other European countries is worth dying for, then I think you need to do a bit more research. Family definitely trumps that.

Using Natalie Bouchart as an example, is a bit like expecting Nigel Farage to have a balanced opinion on refugees. She's a right wing politician, whose focus is almost entirely anti-migrant. She opposed building the "wall of Calais", which would prevent migrants crossing via trucks (and ironically is the main reason for the increase in boat crossings), because her only priority is getting migrants out of Calais. She's a controversial character to say the least. The quotes are from a House of Commons committee hearing, and she claims in the same hearing, that migrants have heard they'll get £36 a week from the UK, and are desperate for this. When an MP points out that this is less than they'd get in France, she simply dismisses it.

As I said, the long explanation of the Bangladeshi community was completely irrelevant.

Not sure why it makes no sense to suggest that we'll always need to house refugees that have just arrived (and those ads are going to be running all the time, even if the numbers are dropping). If you're suggesting that we just shouldn't help anyone, then that's a different argument.

Ultimately, I really don't get the naïve statement. If the UK benefit system is at best comparable, and in most cases less generous than France, why is it naïve to say that's not the main reason people want to risk their lives on a small, overcrowded boat in the middle of the night? If it was UK benefits/housing v Nothing, then I could agree it's a difference, but it's not.

If you think the difference between out welfare state and those of other European countries is worth dying for, then I think you need to do a bit more research. Family definitely trumps that.

You have missed the point, it's not me who believes it's worth dying for is it? It's the migrants camped on the French coast who clearly do. The Mayor of Calais has being making this point for more than a decade.

Using Natalie Bouchart as an example, is a bit like expecting Nigel Farage to have a balanced opinion on refugees. She's a right wing politician, whose focus is almost entirely anti-migrant. She opposed building the "wall of Calais", which would prevent migrants crossing via trucks (and ironically is the main reason for the increase in boat crossings), because her only priority is getting migrants out of Calais. She's a controversial character to say the least. The quotes are from a House of Commons committee hearing, and she claims in the same hearing, that migrants have heard they'll get £36 a week from the UK, and are desperate for this. When an MP points out that this is less than they'd get in France, she simply dismisses it.

So she is a right wing politician ... does that make her opinion of no value to you? What has that got to do with the validity of her statements ? She is you say " anti-immigrant" and " her only priority is getting immigrants out of Calais" She is the elected Mayor of Calais and has been since 2003 ( pretty impressive) do you imagine she was elected on a pro-migrant ticket ? Of course she wants the migrants out of Calais, they are blighting the lives of the residents of Calais and she has been elected to try and do something about it . A politician trying to do what she was elected to do - imagine that.As for being right wing and anti immigrant she endorsed Macron for President - so maybe not as right wing or anti-immigrant as you might like to imagine, she could have chosen LePen.

As I said, the long explanation of the Bangladeshi community was completely irrelevant.

It want irrelevant at all , the point was to illustrate the networks that exist in the UK within migrant communities to assist new arrivals through the welfare system as opposed to your view that migrants are ignorant of the benefits that await them. They don't need to know the detail, they know their community will help them and they know it.

Not sure why it makes no sense to suggest that we'll always need to house refugees that have just arrived (and those ads are going to be running all the time, even if the numbers are dropping). If you're suggesting that we just shouldn't help anyone, then that's a different argument.

It makes no sense because, why will we " always need to house refugees that have just arrived" We already live in one of the most densely populated countries in the world, GDP per capita is falling, we are borrowed £152 Billion last year and yet our Armed forces are woefully ill equipped, our Health Service is second-rate, our social care system is not fit for purpose, our infrastructure is crumbling, there are 1.3 million on the waiting list for social housing. In London over half the social housing stock is occupied by foreign born tenants already whilst our own children are in sub standard and often temporary accommodation.A great many of the migrants are simply not equipped in language or skills to support themselves in the short or even medium term if ever. Does that sound sustainable to you ?
Yet the number of migrants is limitless. War, famine, climate change, I am sure you will agree will drive even greater numbers to our shores in the years to come.
What to do ?
Will you keep taking them ?
How many would you take ? How many do you think we could take?
What will our welfare state look like?
What will the level of Healthcare be that can be provided for free?
What will be the impact on social cohesion in this country ?
At what point would you finally pull up the drawbridge ?
Please tell us.
I am not convinced we will "always need to house refugees that have just arrived" We will not be able to .

Ultimately, I really don't get the naïve statement. If the UK benefit system is at best comparable, and in most cases less generous than France, why is it naïve to say that's not the main reason people want to risk their lives on a small, overcrowded boat in the middle of the night? If it was UK benefits/housing v Nothing, then I could agree it's a difference, but it's not.

I think you may under estimate how much they value free housing, food, healthcare, education, spending money, entertainment etc, we take these things for granted they do not. It is for them, worth risking their lives for.
It is naive because if we passed a law tomorrow that denied small boat migrants access to all the those benefits those crossings would stop ( maybe save for those intent on criminality) to think otherwise, that they would continue just to meet up with their uncles cousins etc is nonsense.