LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

I don't have a specific number in mind.

Didn't think you would. But my point still stands.

I didn't disagree with the point.

It didn't contradict my point though, which also still stands.

Jezyboy

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

kingstongraham

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

What would you do with arrival n+1?

ddraver

Well NHS Week made it to Monday Morning before labour came up with a response...

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJpP2dFD/

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

It's roughly a fifth of net migration even with a war in Europe, so if we are worried about 'too many people' we should maybe stop handing out visas first before we worry about setting some arbitrary limit.

Agree there is a wider issue regarding legal immigration but the point still remains that this needs to be addressed and in a situation where there is pressure on services, funding etc the numbers and associated cost is relevant. You may think there is room for plenty more and we should just invite them all in, but clearly a lot of the electorate think differently.

There are much cheaper ways to process and house applicants. You have a HS deliberately going ahead with a scheme that she has been advised is not value for money. That said the entire cost of the UK asylum system is £3.5bn, which is 0.3% of public spending. So despite the HS wasting money it still doesn't cost that much. If there's pressure on services I'd suggest this is down to a growing population of long term sick and general poor economic performance hitting the ability to provide from both ends. Bringing in more young generally healthy people to increase the tax base sounds like a good idea. The quicker they can get an NI number the better. How else is Sunak going to grow the economy if he chokes off immigration?

briantrumpet

Oops. I'm sure *someone else* will be responsible.

https://twitter.com/BBCMarkEaston/status/1691024708404158464

veronese68

briantrumpet said:

Oops. I'm sure *someone else* will be responsible.

It's that Jeremy Corbyn's fault no doubt.

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

It's roughly a fifth of net migration even with a war in Europe, so if we are worried about 'too many people' we should maybe stop handing out visas first before we worry about setting some arbitrary limit.

Agree there is a wider issue regarding legal immigration but the point still remains that this needs to be addressed and in a situation where there is pressure on services, funding etc the numbers and associated cost is relevant. You may think there is room for plenty more and we should just invite them all in, but clearly a lot of the electorate think differently.

There are much cheaper ways to process and house applicants. You have a HS deliberately going ahead with a scheme that she has been advised is not value for money. That said the entire cost of the UK asylum system is £3.5bn, which is 0.3% of public spending. So despite the HS wasting money it still doesn't cost that much. If there's pressure on services I'd suggest this is down to a growing population of long term sick and general poor economic performance hitting the ability to provide from both ends. Bringing in more young generally healthy people to increase the tax base sounds like a good idea. The quicker they can get an NI number the better. How else is Sunak going to grow the economy if he chokes off immigration?

I can see you point about giving preference to those who can contribute rather than being a liability, but not sure that people should be able to put themselves to the front of the queue by crossing the channel in boats.

shirley_basso

The issue is that the gov't practically does have a moratorium on it - there are virtually no open routes to people seeking asylum through the normal channels, so the only people coming in are on small boats - and there is no logical / legal / financially viable way to send people back.

Therefore there needs to be another way.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

That will mean other countries who already take more than we do having to take an even greater number. Why do we struggle with the infrastructure whereas those, often poorer, countries don't to the extent it is apparently OK to put a higher burden on them?

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Oops. I'm sure *someone else* will be responsible.

https://twitter.com/BBCMarkEaston/status/1691024708404158464

There is a well thumbed Tory cabinet member script for throwing senior civil servants under the bus when you've forced something through against their advice.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?

One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.

Jezyboy

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

The issues largely seem to be around accomodating the migrants whilst they are being processed. A pause on handing out any kind of permission to stay on anyone that arrived by boat would of course speed up the first bit of processing. But then you're still stuck having to look after the migrants whilst deporting them. Is it even possible to deport someone back to Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

surrey_commuter

I think SteveO asks a good question (that he really should answer) and We should all think what that looks like.

Maybe start at the extremes, 10 million and zero and work in.

For me it would be a total number for net immigration and would probably be split between productive and non-productive. I know that sounds ominous.

Having criticised SteveO for not putting a number to the question I am going to be totally hypocritical and do likewise but duck behind my net number would be the increase in total population and my number will be closer to 100,000.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

Oops. I'm sure *someone else* will be responsible.

https://twitter.com/BBCMarkEaston/status/1691024708404158464

There is a well thumbed Tory cabinet member script for throwing senior civil servants under the bus when you've forced something through against their advice.

The local authority told the contractors that they had a positive test the day they moved everyone in.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

The issues largely seem to be around accomodating the migrants whilst they are being processed. A pause on handing out any kind of permission to stay on anyone that arrived by boat would of course speed up the first bit of processing. But then you're still stuck having to look after the migrants whilst deporting them. Is it even possible to deport someone back to Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

It's not easy to deport most asylum seekers. It's the reason that many destroy their documents on arrival.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

The issues largely seem to be around accomodating the migrants whilst they are being processed. A pause on handing out any kind of permission to stay on anyone that arrived by boat would of course speed up the first bit of processing. But then you're still stuck having to look after the migrants whilst deporting them. Is it even possible to deport someone back to Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

It's not easy to deport most asylum seekers. It's the reason that many destroy their documents on arrival.

So why the pretence that tweaking the conditions people are kept in - which were never that great - will make any difference?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

The issues largely seem to be around accomodating the migrants whilst they are being processed. A pause on handing out any kind of permission to stay on anyone that arrived by boat would of course speed up the first bit of processing. But then you're still stuck having to look after the migrants whilst deporting them. Is it even possible to deport someone back to Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

It's not easy to deport most asylum seekers. It's the reason that many destroy their documents on arrival.

So why the pretence that tweaking the conditions people are kept in - which were never that great - will make any difference?

Some people withdraw their applications and they think others will be discouraged. Plus, as you know, they are playing politics.

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.

Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense

One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?

Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.

Agreed 👍

So what do you think that limit should be?

What do you think it should be.

I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.

Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)

I'm no expert but setting a target feels like a mug's game as the government can't control how many people arrive on small boats and it can't control how many can be deported.

Ironically, had the UK remained in the EU, then with no "safe, legal routes" for anyone to claim asylum in the UK and a right to return everyone arriving from France back to France then the "small boats" issue wouldn't exist.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

I think SteveO asks a good question (that he really should answer) and We should all think what that looks like.

Maybe start at the extremes, 10 million and zero and work in.

For me it would be a total number for net immigration and would probably be split between productive and non-productive. I know that sounds ominous.

Having criticised SteveO for not putting a number to the question I am going to be totally hypocritical and do likewise but duck behind my net number would be the increase in total population and my number will be closer to 100,000.

I gave a point of reference on the previous page.
To save you looking in 2022 we took in 328,989. Sounds a lot?
France took in 612,934.
Germany took in 2,075,445.
Turkey took in 3,568,259.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

I think SteveO asks a good question (that he really should answer) and We should all think what that looks like.

Maybe start at the extremes, 10 million and zero and work in.

For me it would be a total number for net immigration and would probably be split between productive and non-productive. I know that sounds ominous.

Having criticised SteveO for not putting a number to the question I am going to be totally hypocritical and do likewise but duck behind my net number would be the increase in total population and my number will be closer to 100,000.

Let the free market decide.

(I’d make them all sit English language exams and charge them a hefty earnings based tax for every failed exam until they passed but I appreciate this seems to upset a lot of people for reasons I never really understand)

shirley_basso

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

First.Aspect

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

They are all foreigners and as we know, that's bad.

rick_chasey

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the fag ends.

If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.

If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.

You are edging closer to the problem.

shirley_basso

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

They are all foreigners and as we know, that's bad.

Wrong. They are coloured foreigners. Middle class Ukranians were mostly welcomed with open arms.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.

If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.

You are edging closer to the problem.

Not really.

If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.

First.Aspect

shirley_basso said:

First.Aspect said:

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

They are all foreigners and as we know, that's bad.

Wrong. They are coloured foreigners. Middle class Ukranians were mostly welcomed with open arms.

This is so depressingly true.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.

Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.

If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.

You are edging closer to the problem.

Not really.

If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.

Can't disagree with that.