The Labour Government

hampshireblue said:
I assume you know how Schengen and the EU works regarding freedom to travel? Or maybe not with a comment like that above.

One can go from Syria into Turkey and then into the EU. So 2 borders to cross in one way or another.

I bet not a single person on this forum actually has any idea what it means to be deperate enought to up sticks and decide to move several 1000miles. Be it paying up front to get out of or to a particular country or doing it off their own back. Let's not forget who the actual criminals are, the people traffickers. There are very few comments on here about the role they play in the whole situation.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to travel several thousands of miles to reach a safe haven in fairness, that was a choice.

Starmer said he was going to smash the gangs maybe politicians should be more realistic in their promises?
 
hilts said:
They didn't have to travel several thousands of miles to reach a safe haven in fairness, that was a choice.

Starmer said he was going to smash the gangs maybe politicians should be more realistic in their promises?
Click to expand...
I agree on the last part but taking the gangs out need to begin at source and that's easier said than done espacially with social media.

The vast majority of refugees stay in the country/ies adjacent to where their home is. What we see is the tiniest tip of a massive iceberg. It would be unrelistic for all refugees to do this, and the pressure put on similar impoverished nations would be intolerable for them. I think per capita, Lebanon takes the most as it is adjacent to Syria. We have to recognise this is a global issue and we are not totally immune from it, much as some would wish we are.
 
M18CTID said:
The fact that over 30% get rejected shows that there is a criteria in place to decide who should and shouldn't be granted asylum. Brewster just thinks anyone can rock up with any old Jackanory and be waved through. If that were the case, then the success rate would be 100% and it wouldn't be taking 18 months or more to process the claims FFS!

For me, it's the processing times that are the main issue - get that down and the overall costs will come down. The quicker they're processed, the quicker we can send back the unsuccessful applicants and the quicker the successful applicants can integrate, get jobs, and pay into the system.
Click to expand...
The plan under the last lot was to not process claims so that they would be in limbo for ages and word would get out and people wouldn’t come plus would probably fiddle the figures
 
hilts said:
They didn't have to travel several thousands of miles to reach a safe haven in fairness, that was a choice.

Starmer said he was going to smash the gangs maybe politicians should be more realistic in their promises?
Click to expand...
As the last post responding to this says the vast majority stay close. And leaving aside the argument there about the poverty or ability of those countries to look after everyone if people only stayed in countries next to the country they flee from. Surely it cannot be morally acceptable for the west especially us as island on the edge of Europe not to take anyone unless there is a war in France or Ireland
 
We have a legal and ethical obligation to protect asylum seekers. And I'm glad we do.

It's not really about the cost of which which is chicken feed in the whole scheme of things (I often wonder why people dont complain as much about the costs of other things that are a much bigger drain on the public purse).

But if people are bothered, sure. Keep the costs to a minimum. I do think the government is trying to do that. For those that are rejected, this needs to determined and acted upon quicker.

For those that succeed, get them processed and into the workforce paying taxes as soon as we can.
 
hampshireblue said:
Or the successive governments have actually been following the law in determining an asylum status.

Because if the same rules are being applied wherever the processing takes place. the outcome would be the same and potentially saves the asylum seeker a laod of cash and the dangerous crossing. Are you really saying that just because somone comes from a particular country, they are granted asylum? i very much doubt that's the case.
Click to expand...
That’s a very naive comment and with all due respect, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject.

In the year to March 2025, 99% of applicants from Sudan had a positive grant rate at the initial decision stage of the process. It was 98% for people from Syria, and 86% for applicants from Eritrea.

So I would suggest that the UK system currently provides a very good example of people being granted asylum simply because they come from a particular country, or in this case three particular countries.

A near perfect example with regards to Sudan and Syria in fact, and of course the pertinent point here is that the UK has no control whatsoever around the number of people arriving from these countries. So, to answer your point and the comment @M18CTID made about me in his post, we very obviously have a system in place currently where anyone can arrive from a given country and be granted asylum almost automatically. It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.

Also, your other point around the outcome being the same if applications were processed before a person arrived on the UK is false as well, because you’re ignoring the practical difficulties which emerge once a person is in the UK. Just 44% of asylum seekers from Afghanistan had a successful application at the initial decision stage in the year to March, but they can’t be removed from the UK and so they are left in limbo, stuck in the system. This obviously wouldn’t be happening if they were not in the UK.
 
Brewster's millions said:
That’s a very naive comment and with all due respect, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject.

In the year to March 2025, 99% of applicants from Sudan had a positive grant rate at the initial decision stage of the process. It was 98% for people from Syria, and 86% for applicants from Eritrea.

So I would suggest that the UK system currently provides a very good example of people being granted asylum simply because they come from a particular country, or in this case three particular countries.

A near perfect example with regards to Sudan and Syria in fact, and of course the pertinent point here is that the UK has no control whatsoever around the number of people arriving from these countries. So, to answer your point and the comment @M18CTID made about me in his post, we very obviously have a system in place currently where anyone can arrive from a given country and be granted asylum almost automatically. It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.

Also, your other point around the outcome being the same if applications were processed before a person arrived on the UK is false as well, because you’re ignoring the practical difficulties which emerge once a person is in the UK. Just 44% of asylum seekers from Afghanistan had a successful application at the initial decision stage in the year to March, but they can’t be removed from the UK and so they are left in limbo, stuck in the system. This obviously wouldn’t be happening if they were not in the UK.
Click to expand...
Now what do Sudan and Syria have in common?-oh yes they are war zones. On that basis the acceptance rate is likely to be higher-think Ukraine where actual safe routes were set up. I wonder what the difference is between the two!!!

Although not at war, Eritrea suffers from:

"Eritreans seek asylum due to widespread and systematic human rights violations, primarily driven by a brutal, indefinite national service program that has led to forced labor, torture, and extrajudicial killings. The United Nations and human rights organizations report a pervasive climate of fear, a total lack of rule of law, and the inability to leave the country legally, forcing people to flee through dangerous routes."

As for the last para, let's get the system sorted so people aren't left in limbo. My point was that the same criteria should be applied be it here, in France, or wherever else processing takes place.
 
hampshireblue said:
I agree on the last part but taking the gangs out need to begin at source and that's easier said than done espacially with social media.

The vast majority of refugees stay in the country/ies adjacent to where their home is. What we see is the tiniest tip of a massive iceberg. It would be unrelistic for all refugees to do this, and the pressure put on similar impoverished nations would be intolerable for them. I think per capita, Lebanon takes the most as it is adjacent to Syria. We have to recognise this is a global issue and we are not totally immune from it, much as some would wish we are.
Click to expand...
I agree the whole thing needs a rethink
 
WRicko said:
As the last post responding to this says the vast majority stay close. And leaving aside the argument there about the poverty or ability of those countries to look after everyone if people only stayed in countries next to the country they flee from. Surely it cannot be morally acceptable for the west especially us as island on the edge of Europe not to take anyone unless there is a war in France or Ireland
Click to expand...

I said it was a choice, no more no less.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
But equally, taking fucking ages attracts people too. People talk about asylum, but the other route is the trafficking claim. This is common with claimants from countries where there is no obvious grounds for refugee status, like Vietnam. Instead, you can claim to be a victim of trafficking, and while it's generally a less reliable way to be able to stay permanently, it does offer a route to getting dodgy work.

How it works is that you make your claim, for example, saying that you got into debt with a gang and they trafficked you to the UK to pay it off. They then have a 'reasonable grounds' decision, which is an extremely low-threshold check to say that there may be a risk that the person was trafficked, and it has an 88% acceptance rate. The target for this is 5 days, but in reality, even this can take months. They then have to wait for the 'conclusive grounds' check, which is the higher threshold and more in-depth check. The target is 45 days, but in reality, it takes a year to 18 months on average. 54% are then recognised as having 'conclusive grounds,' but only 4 to 7% of those applying are actually granted leave to remain after this.

So why would you bother going through all that when you only have a 4% chance of being able to stay? Well the answer is that it takes so long that the amount of money you can make in the illegal economy in that time makes it worth it, and certain nationalities have a well-established network of this dodgy work (Vietnamese-run weed farms, for example). If people were processed in 45 days and 96% were returned home within that time, do you really think anyone would be paying thousands of dollars and risking their lives for a month of income? Of course not. But 18 months while they wait for a decision? Yeah, that's definitely worth it when you come from a country where a normal job is paying $300 a month.

And like everything else in the UK these days, you also have to think about who benefits from ridiculous inefficiencies. And yet again, it's presented as our tax money going to foreign scroungers, when in reality, the vast majority of that money is ending up in the coffers of private landlords, hotel owners, and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party. It's amazing how a few friends in government can turn your hotel with 2.1 stars on Google reviews into a massive cash cow, isn't it? No-one's staying their by choice? No problem. Just phone up your mate at the foreign office and offer your services.
Click to expand...
Good post until you got to the last paragraph and then the wheels fell off.

I mean honestly, "the vast majority of that money is ending up in the coffers of private landlords, hotel owners, and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party".

The vast majority (i.e. significantly more than 50%) of all the money spent on housing asylym seekings has gone to Tory party donors??? Even you know that is unsubstantiated, utter tosh.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Good post until you got to the last paragraph and then the wheels fell off.

I mean honestly, "the vast majority of that money is ending up in the coffers of private landlords, hotel owners, and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party".

The vast majority (i.e. significantly more than 50%) of all the money spent on housing asylym seekings has gone to Tory party donors??? Even you know that is unsubstantiated, utter tosh.
Click to expand...
Ah, the classically ambiguous English relative clause. Because of course you could read is as:

a) private landlords
b) hotels owners
c) other service providers
who (all) just happened to donate to the Tory party.

Or you could read it as:
a) private landlords
b) hotel owners
c) and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party.

In the first case, you're absolutely right to criticise. In the latter, I'm absolutely right, unless you would deny that the vast majority of money from asylum ends up in the pockets of one of those three groups. The use of 'the vast majority' refers to the fact that close to 100% of the provisions for asylum seekers are provided by private contractors, and these provisions massively dwarf any direct government spending, such as the case staff themselves. Almost nothing is provided by the government themselves, other than the money.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Good post until you got to the last paragraph and then the wheels fell off.

I mean honestly, "the vast majority of that money is ending up in the coffers of private landlords, hotel owners, and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party".

The vast majority (i.e. significantly more than 50%) of all the money spent on housing asylym seekings has gone to Tory party donors??? Even you know that is unsubstantiated, utter tosh.
Click to expand...
A bit like you telling us your County Council is broke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but that was just one of your lies to make a point.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Ah, the classically ambiguous English relative clause. Because of course you could read is as:

a) private landlords
b) hotels owners
c) other service providers
who (all) just happened to donate to the Tory party.

Or you could read it as:
a) private landlords
b) hotel owners
c) and other service providers who just happened to donate to the Tory party.

In the first case, you're absolutely right to criticise. In the latter, I'm absolutely right, unless you would deny that the vast majority of money from asylum ends up in the pockets of one of those three groups. The use of 'the vast majority' refers to the fact that close to 100% of the provisions for asylum seekers are provided by private contractors, and these provisions massively dwarf any direct government spending, such as the case staff themselves. Almost nothing is provided by the government themselves, other than the money.
Click to expand...
Did you mean the latter? If you did, then I agree, but also what's the problem with that?

Of course I would rather we didn't have hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers. But given that we have got them, and putting them somewhere costs money, who would you like to receive the money?
 
bluenova said:
Even the headlines in these articles put everything in quotes because they have so little actual evidence. The article is also referring to a specific period from 2021, to early 2022. I don't doubt that people took advantage of the chaos, or tried to, given the pressure at the time, but Afghanistan was a special case for a short while.

I explained what the current law is - something you can look up and confirm.
Click to expand...
Since when did illegal asylum seekers worry about the fucking law . You must be a priest or godhelpus a labour politician
 
WRicko said:
What do you mean lazy post ? How about yours ?

So investment doesn’t improve growth ?

How do you not know what investment I am on about ? What was Trump here for ?

Or how about record investment in general or record NHS Spending or for improvement record appointments or Breakfast clubs to help take care of child care so people can get more work.

A health educated workforce isn’t more productive ?

O and just a little edit what was on the news this morning Gatwick expansion Luton expansion already approved and Heathrow will probably happen
Click to expand...

It was lazy because it had no detail so appreciate the follow up. None of these things you’ve listed are bad things - although not all is government policy or investment and some of it will take years to pay off. It’s all a bit piecemeal though and we lack a strategy for growth, right now we seem to be relying on a combination of raising taxes / cutting expenditure annually just to keep the lights on and hoping for external investment to get us out of the hole we are in. In other words we are all going to be paying more in tax for everything to stay the same.

The world is a more dangerous place, we are receiving orders for warships built in this country - let’s order some for ourselves, get our reputation up, make the UK the supplier of choice. Plenty of other bits of military kit we can make as well. Build them 1.5m homes. Build the hospitals and schools we need. Borrow to invest, tax to invest, reduce corp taxes don’t raise them, make the UK the destination of choice. None of this is labours doing but they are the ones in charge and making the decisions now, give us some hope - that’s how this government gets re-elected, not focusing on immigration.
 
metalblue said:
It was lazy because it had no detail so appreciate the follow up. None of these things you’ve listed are bad things - although not all is government policy or investment and some of it will take years to pay off. It’s all a bit piecemeal though and we lack a strategy for growth, right now we seem to be relying on a combination of raising taxes / cutting expenditure annually just to keep the lights on and hoping for external investment to get us out of the hole we are in. In other words we are all going to be paying more in tax for everything to stay the same.

The world is a more dangerous place, we are receiving orders for warships built in this country - let’s order some for ourselves, get our reputation up, make the UK the supplier of choice. Plenty of other bits of military kit we can make as well. Build them 1.5m homes. Build the hospitals and schools we need. Borrow to invest, tax to invest, reduce corp taxes don’t raise them, make the UK the destination of choice. None of this is labours doing but they are the ones in charge and making the decisions now, give us some hope - that’s how this government gets re-elected, not focusing on immigration.
Click to expand...
Warships don’t improve the economy but we are spending more on defence including on the supply chain which will

O by the way we just did the biggest ever sale of warships to Norway

I forgot to mention planing reform or investment in green tech.

What makes you say there is not a strategy ? Because the investments a bit of mix ? Isn’t that a good thing ? Or

I think there can be only one keep spending rained in bar investment for long terms improvements and efficiency. We cannot afford spending or tax cuts but if we can get the planning system moving the workforce healthier and the private sector investing then in time spending can go up and taxes come down

Also on the strategy front I don’t think a government has ever had more reviews and consultations I think that’s a bit frustrating and maybe a sign of a lack of strategy but in the long term will lead to better decisions and more of strategy I suspect in fact I think one of the reviews is industrial strategy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top