LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Partly because the numbers in the country mount up over time and we have finite space and resources. I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
I don't completely disagree with the visa position and its good that we can control that. However that's not the situation with those that show up in a small boat."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Now you’re talking 😜Pross said:
Send Boomers to Rwanda. I can think of at least one person on here that would get behind that campaign.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.0 -
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
0 -
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
0 -
Not sure that's a new circumstance. Population growth has been fairly steady and incremental for decades and the growth rate has actually fallen over the past few years compared to the 90s and 00s.Stevo_666 said:
Partly because the numbers in the country mount up over time and we have finite space and resources. I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
I don't completely disagree with the visa position and its good that we can control that. However that's not the situation with those that show up in a small boat.
I think I have made my views on the not enough space argument pretty clear before. But if you are worried about population growth, start with the big stuff rather than fussing about the <10% of immigration that is asylum claims. Unless you can magically end all wars, etc. people will always be on the move and a small percentage will end up here.
To take your argument from the Brexit thread, our membership of the treaty is a done deal and there is no prospect of us withdrawing so wishing for some specific limit on numbers is equally as pointless.
The trouble is, Britain needs immigration. With a birth rate of 1.56, the country will literally die out without it. Look at Japan if you want to see what minimal immigration and an ageing population looks like.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sounds like something that would be easy to change unilaterally with no issues.0
-
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I refer you to your argument in the Brexit thread. Good luck with that.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That a nice glib, one-liner for a forum exchange, but meanwhile, in the real world, what do you actually do without breaking treaty commitments? Not a rhetorical question btw.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
0 -
Lol.Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.
I suppose Churchill - who ratified our membership of the treaty - did technically stand as a Liberal in the 1920s, so maybe that's what the author meant.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You have to pay to read this drivel? Brilliant 😂Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.2 -
Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.0
-
I wonder if those on strike will get (even) less sympathy for their wage requests as the inflation rate drops?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
0 -
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Duplicate.
0 -
Today’s inflation figure is 6.8% for the last year.pangolin said:
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.
I agree with your observation about the long time required to offset the recent falls in living standards, but from a Guardian writer viewpoint, that will require maths and analytical skills to properly explain, which they don't appear to have as a general rule. Anything more than comparing two numbers seems to be beyond them.
0 -
Sure, what I mean is I don't think we have a pay figure that up to date. The one we have is for June.wallace_and_gromit said:
Today’s inflation figure is 6.8% for the last year.pangolin said:
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It made me smile. Taking the p1ss out of the Libs is a worthy cause, but behind the humour there isn a pointskyblueamateur said:
You have to pay to read this drivel? Brilliant 😂Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why aren't you down at Dover with a loudhailer?rjsterry said:
Lol.Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.
I suppose Churchill - who ratified our membership of the treaty - did technically stand as a Liberal in the 1920s, so maybe that's what the author meant.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Released yesterday: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latestpangolin said:
Sure, what I mean is I don't think we have a pay figure that up to date. The one we have is for June.wallace_and_gromit said:
Today’s inflation figure is 6.8% for the last year.pangolin said:
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.
There will always be a slight timing mismatch, but the most recent pay growth is 7.8% (annual rate in the most recent calendar quarter) vs the most recent inflation rate of 6.8% (year to July). The Guardian et al never bothered about such things when the comparisons were favourable to their cause, so it would be a little unreasonable of them to start worrying about timing mismatches now. Though to be fair, I doubt the Guardian writers understand timing mismatches. They even struggle with the difference between forecasts and actuals.0 -
Probably not, but only because (IMHO) support for strikers feels more ideologically based than analytically based.Pross said:
I wonder if those on strike will get (even) less sympathy for their wage requests as the inflation rate drops?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
0 -
BoE weren’t entirely wrong about fears of wage inflation thenwallace_and_gromit said:
Today’s inflation figure is 6.8% for the last year.pangolin said:
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.
I agree with your observation about the long time required to offset the recent falls in living standards, but from a Guardian writer viewpoint, that will require maths and analytical skills to properly explain, which they don't appear to have as a general rule. Anything more than comparing two numbers seems to be beyond them.0 -
Ok, think you are just agreeing with me at lengthwallace_and_gromit said:
Released yesterday: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latestpangolin said:
Sure, what I mean is I don't think we have a pay figure that up to date. The one we have is for June.wallace_and_gromit said:
Today’s inflation figure is 6.8% for the last year.pangolin said:
Inflation to June was 7.9% wasn't it? And pay was in the news this week for being 7.8% to June I think?wallace_and_gromit said:Can we spare a thought today for the Guardian's economic writers? Today's UK inflation figures show that average wage growth has exceed inflation in the last year, so they can't just reach for the "falling living standards" cliches to generate pessimistic one-liners.
In any case, if it is 1% higher to July, it will need to stay that way for a loooong time to reverse the trend.
There will always be a slight timing mismatch, but the most recent pay growth is 7.8% (annual rate in the most recent calendar quarter) vs the most recent inflation rate of 6.8% (year to July). The Guardian et al never bothered about such things when the comparisons were favourable to their cause, so it would be a little unreasonable of them to start worrying about timing mismatches now. Though to be fair, I doubt the Guardian writers understand timing mismatches. They even struggle with the difference between forecasts and actuals.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
You can wish for what you like but until we withdraw from the treaty those are our obligations. We have agreed to deal with all applications on a case by case basis. The numbers are down to how much conflict there is and what links we have with those places.Stevo_666 said:
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
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?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
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
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.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?
It's nothing to do with France (or any other country that happens to be on a land route to the UK) and not their responsibility to deal with people applying for asylum in the UK. People can apply for asylum in whichever country they choose. Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
But you know all that.
Which do you think will happen first: rejoin the EU or withdraw from the the Refugee Convention 🙂.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
