LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Some people might call it Eurobollox.

kingstongraham

Back in the real world, Jenrick has admitted that the backlog has been deliberately increased to try and make the UK less attractive.

That seems to not have worked.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

You probably have a fair point, though I'm not sure if they claim admit that their efforts are legal when they aren't, and tell those claiming refugee status explicitly to fvck off to wherever they came from.

Just a thought that given that it's a massive problem which is probably only going to get worse, it would be better to come to agreed solutions using appropriate language in the appropriate fora rather than unilateral undiplomatic "fvck you"s.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

Back in the real world, Jenrick has admitted that the backlog has been deliberately increased to try and make the UK less attractive.

That seems to not have worked.

As ever, it's the poor places that lose out due to Tory policy.

They're not shoving those waiting to be processed in the nice areas with Tory voters are they?

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Disgraceful.

Jezyboy

kingstongraham said:

Back in the real world, Jenrick has admitted that the backlog has been deliberately increased to try and make the UK less attractive.

That seems to not have worked.

It's an interesting question, which is worse from an optics pov, free hotel accommodation, or lots of small boats.

I struggle to get that wound up about the small boats. Housing loads of people in hotels for long periods of time just seems like an all round crap solution. Rubbish for the people in the hotels, rubbish for the people who previously worked in the hotels, rubbish for the towns that previously relied on the hotels (for business of tourism) and rubbish value for the taxpayers.

The news is then full this Bibby scheme that would (best case scenario) take 1% of the total migrants currently housed.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Is Doncaster uniquely unknown to asylum seekers?

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Is Doncaster uniquely unknown to asylum seekers?

I wouldn't know.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Is Doncaster uniquely unknown to asylum seekers?

I wouldn't know.

Odd then that you highlight the use of Doncaster and then complain about asylum seekers knowing nothing about where they've been put. It implies that you know that asylum seekers know nothing about Doncaster.

Or were you just slagging off Doncaster? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even if you've never been, but I'm curious as to why you specifically mentioned it.

Full disclosure - I once had a very scary afternoon at the Doncaster Dome Leisure Centre. I felt very intimated by the shaven headed, tattoo-sporting clearly steroid abusing types who kept flexing their muscles at me. And the guys were quite scary too.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Is Doncaster uniquely unknown to asylum seekers?

I wouldn't know.

Odd then that you highlight the use of Doncaster and then complain about asylum seekers knowing nothing about where they've been put. It implies that you know that asylum seekers know nothing about Doncaster.

Or were you just slagging off Doncaster? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even if you've never been, but I'm curious as to why you specifically mentioned it.

Full disclosure - I once had a very scary afternoon at the Doncaster Dome Leisure Centre. I felt very intimated by the shaven headed, tattoo-sporting clearly steroid abusing types who kept flexing their muscles at me. And the guys were quite scary too.

My wife is from Doncaster, my in-laws still live there so I go there a lot, so I'm very familiar with the problems Doncaster has. I've been going there for the past 14 years and I've seen the decline of the centre with my own eyes.

The left-wing lot like me in Cambridge are all "let everyone in", me included, but when you see the groups of men who are obviously asylum seekers hanging around street corners all day without much English (because they have nothing else they're allowed to do) waiting to be processed, you see why people would be against them.

But as ever, the nice places don't have to host these people, who presumably just want to get on with it themselves.

The Tories do it cynically, as per above, because they know it generates right-wing votes. In reality, it's a solvable problem that's nothing to do with the asylum seekers and all to do with the processing capability.

So who loses out to cynical tory policies? Places that already could do with some help.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Is Doncaster uniquely unknown to asylum seekers?

I wouldn't know.

Odd then that you highlight the use of Doncaster and then complain about asylum seekers knowing nothing about where they've been put. It implies that you know that asylum seekers know nothing about Doncaster.

Or were you just slagging off Doncaster? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even if you've never been, but I'm curious as to why you specifically mentioned it.

Full disclosure - I once had a very scary afternoon at the Doncaster Dome Leisure Centre. I felt very intimated by the shaven headed, tattoo-sporting clearly steroid abusing types who kept flexing their muscles at me. And the guys were quite scary too.

My wife is from Doncaster, my in-laws still live there so I go there a lot, so I'm very familiar with the problems Doncaster has. I've been going there for the past 14 years and I've seen the decline of the centre with my own eyes.

The left-wing lot like me in Cambridge are all "let everyone in", me included, but when you see the groups of men who are obviously asylum seekers hanging around street corners all day without much English (because they have nothing else they're allowed to do) waiting to be processed, you see why people would be against them.

But as ever, the nice places don't have to host these people, who presumably just want to get on with it themselves.

The Tories do it cynically, as per above, because they know it generates right-wing votes. In reality, it's a solvable problem that's nothing to do with the asylum seekers and all to do with the processing capability.

So who loses out to cynical tory policies? Places that already could do with some help.

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above, but still don't see the relevance of your comment about asylum seekers being housed in places they know nothing about. That would surely apply to everywhere in the UK, as you can't know what a place is like in practical terms until you've lived there or lived near it. (And tbh, if one is seeking asylum then surely one has higher priorities than knowledge of the local area.)

rick_chasey

A decent proportion of seekers have a connection to the UK, hence turning up here.

I guess that's what I meant.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

You probably have a fair point, though I'm not sure if they claim admit that their efforts are legal when they aren't, and tell those claiming refugee status explicitly to fvck off to wherever they came from.

Just a thought that given that it's a massive problem which is probably only going to get worse, it would be better to come to agreed solutions using appropriate language in the appropriate fora rather than unilateral undiplomatic "fvck you"s.

It's a tough one, but I think illegally deporting someone is probably worse than rude words although you could argue that rude words affect those that are not deported as well.

shirley_basso

rick_chasey said:

A decent proportion of seekers have a connection to the UK, hence turning up here.

I guess that's what I meant.

Are they asylum seekers though, or immigrants?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

rick_chasey

The immigration stuff across the whole of West Europe really bugs me.

Immigration has quite clear pros and cons. The problem is, the cons are mostly solvable, they are just not in remit of the functions that are usually responsible for immigration.

Plusses? Great for the economy. Good for cultural diversity blah blah. More competitive, more dynamic, all that good stuff. A keystone of the American magic economy is that they kept getting the world's best and ambitious people who wanted to work hard and earn.

Negatives? Largely around additional strain on anything the public uses, from transport to housing to education etc. Risk of ghettoisation, lack of integration

But all of those negatives can be solved for; ideally with all the wonderful productivity immigrants usually provide.

Instead, I feel like we have a whole wing of the political spectrum; and this is not remotely exclusive to the UK but spans the whole of western europe; that insists on cutting back on all investment which exacerbate the cons of immigration and then blame the immigrants for all their problems.

It's maddening, really is.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

A decent proportion of seekers have a connection to the UK, hence turning up here.

I guess that's what I meant.

Well if you're guessing at what you meant then you can hopefully understand that to anyone else, your meaning was unclear.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

True.

The key point is that making things a bit uncomfortable is not going to deter people. But then the whole thing is designed to fail. If it actually worked they would lose the one talking point they have left.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

True.

The key point is that making things a bit uncomfortable is not going to deter people. But then the whole thing is designed to fail. If it actually worked they would lose the one talking point they have left.

I think making things uncomfortable does deter people (e.g. Australia's policy). In general though, there isn't an obvious answer of what should be done.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

True.

The key point is that making things a bit uncomfortable is not going to deter people. But then the whole thing is designed to fail. If it actually worked they would lose the one talking point they have left.

I think making things uncomfortable does deter people (e.g. Australia's policy). In general though, there isn't an obvious answer of what should be done.

It's pointless to even try. You may as well legislate against coastal erosion. The push from climate change, war and economic deprivation is not something that can be turned aside with a photo op visit to Folkestone and buying a single barge.

veronese68

rjsterry said:

... and buying a single barge.

Maybe the plan is to tow the barge to Rwanda every time they fill it up. Yes, I know it's landlocked. That's the level of thought that goes into most of their policies.

Jezyboy

How much do the migrants know about the conditions they will be held in before they come here? Unless the answer is, all the details, then making it uncomfortable doesn't do any good.

veronese68

Jezyboy said:

How much do the migrants know about the conditions they will be held in before they come here? Unless the answer is, all the details, then making it uncomfortable doesn't do any good.

As I said, not a lot of critical thinking goes into these policies? Will it sound like we're doing something that will placate the baying mob and win some votes is all they care about.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Back in the real world, Jenrick has admitted that the backlog has been deliberately increased to try and make the UK less attractive.

That seems to not have worked.

As ever, it's the poor places that lose out due to Tory policy.

They're not shoving those waiting to be processed in the nice areas with Tory voters are they?

They're sticking them in Doncaster centre. You get a bunch of people who are put there, with nothing to do all day, who often know nothing about where they've been put.

Disgraceful.

Dorset strikes me as Tory (Mr Goo must be apoplectic about the barge) and the one hotel I was looking at booking for a choir tour to Cornwall in Newquay was being used to house asylum seekers until the start of the year and that is a Tory constituency.

Pross

Jezyboy said:

How much do the migrants know about the conditions they will be held in before they come here? Unless the answer is, all the details, then making it uncomfortable doesn't do any good.

Even if they knew it will still be far better than a camp on the border of their country of origin or living in the middle of a war zone so I doubt it is going to deter anyone. I suppose the ones living in luxury villas in their homeland may be dissuaded though.

pblakeney

Pross said:

Jezyboy said:

How much do the migrants know about the conditions they will be held in before they come here? Unless the answer is, all the details, then making it uncomfortable doesn't do any good.

Even if they knew it will still be far better than a camp on the border of their country of origin or living in the middle of a war zone so I doubt it is going to deter anyone. I suppose the ones living in luxury villas in their homeland may be dissuaded though.

...or probably the 93 in Paris come to that.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

True.

The key point is that making things a bit uncomfortable is not going to deter people. But then the whole thing is designed to fail. If it actually worked they would lose the one talking point they have left.

So what do you think the solution is?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

To be fair, he was only referring to the ones that were moaning about the conditions. Which is maybe why he hit a bit of a raw nerve in Cake Stop

webboo

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

To be fair, he was only referring to the ones that were moaning about the conditions. Which is maybe why he hit a bit of a raw nerve in Cake Stop

Given the amount of times you mention nerves in your posts, should we be calling you Shaking Stevo.🤣

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I see the performatively stupid Anderson and co are talking bollox about immigration again.

I suppose one should marvel that the party has chosen to dig in on the policy on which almost nobody thinks they are succeeding. Still, when you have nothing else to say...

It's dishonest for the news to bowdlerise his comments. The deputy Conservative chairman said they should "fuck off back to France" and number 10 has confirmed they support his comments.

So only the PM supporting obscenity which was in support of a policy which is in flagrant breach of international law. What's the problem?

Aligning himself with the EU to keep you happy.

They're indeed just as bad.

Yes and clearly my point is irrelevant whataboutism, but I do find the endless cries about international law and EU superiority to be a bit tedious.

Small consolation in that I don't think we've let a small trawler full of people sink while we sat on our hands

The EU-Turkey agreement is a better example rather than rogue coastguards.

True.

The key point is that making things a bit uncomfortable is not going to deter people. But then the whole thing is designed to fail. If it actually worked they would lose the one talking point they have left.

So what do you think the solution is?

To migration in general? There isn't one. It's a fundamental part of human nature. May as well try to hold back the tide. What we experience in this country is a small part of a small part of global migration, so we should stop whining about it and just deal with it. We accept vastly more people through the visa system than via asylum applications so the government clearly isn't bothered about migration generally. Removing most practical routes to claiming asylum has created the specific Channel problem and directed migrants to the very smugglers the government implausibly claim to want to stop. Re-establish those routes and that removes the need to cross seas in boats. Process applications in a timely manner with perhaps some interim work permit so that people can support themselves and the need for hotels and barges diminishes.

That do?