LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Pross

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

I think that's just because all he is interested in is arguing with the lefties. If everyone else on here was saying we should be turning away asylum seekers he would probably be arguing that we should let in as many as possible to fill labour shortages and reduce wage inflation or something.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Poland

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

monkimark

Poland according to the article.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

Suburbs of Victoria. It's not cheap, certainly.

wallace_and_gromit

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

And shovelling snow.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

Suburbs of Victoria. It's not cheap, certainly.

Yup, but he has an almost deserted island the size of the UK just north of him.

Bastard to get off the island though. As we used to say the corporate motto shpuld be, "BC Ferries - shit but who the hell else are you going to use?"

There's a pretty good analogue in Scotland at the moment, but they've really taken it on another step.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

So is the solution then to create some legal routes?

Then it’s not illegal innnit

Depends how easy we want to make it, given we seem to have plenty already.

rick_chasey

Eastern Europe, Poland included, is headed for a terrible decade, if you believe in the economic value of liberalism and tolerance, and the value of competence over jingoistic tub thumping.

It is absolutely the worst govt Uk has had in living memory, has made the Uk worse relative to its peers and deserves to be electorally annihilated but let’s not exaggerate!

Pross

New Zealand was the one that always appealed to me, 20 years too late now though and it is no longer a cheap option. Canada was also somewhere I'd fancied. There's others I like the idea of but have no experience of them and language would be a potential barrier to working in a technical job (Scandi countries mainly).

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

So is the solution then to create some legal routes?

Then it’s not illegal innnit

Depends how easy we want to make it, given we seem to have plenty already.

Under international treaty commitments, there is no such thing as "illegal immigration". The illegal bit is failing to report to the authorities once you've arrived.

So folk arriving in the UK and patiently waiting their turn to be processed are not doing anything illegal, despite what the Wicked Witch of the Home Office and GB News might want you to believe.

Those who arrive and then "do a runner" are acting illegally.

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

The cost of housing those currently going through processing are as high as they are because the government has chosen to not implement cheaper options.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

Suburbs of Victoria. It's not cheap, certainly.

A very British move that. I've done my Canadian time and would struggle with the car centric and dull layout of towns. Victoria is obviously a bit different though.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

The figures are pretty clear and well documented. Last year was a peak at just under 90k, so no need to extrapolate from one day. About 3/4 of those will be granted asylum. Cost of whole asylum system is about £3bn a year as already posted. Could be cheaper if temporary accommodation was sorted instead of insisting on block booking hotels but still chicken feed in the scheme of things. For comparison, Covid loan losses are estimated to be around £17bn and we're apparently not bothered about that.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

The figures are pretty clear and well documented. Last year was a peak at just under 90k, so no need to extrapolate from one day. About 3/4 of those will be granted asylum. Cost of whole asylum system is about £3bn a year as already posted. Could be cheaper if temporary accommodation was sorted instead of insisting on block booking hotels but still chicken feed in the scheme of things. For comparison, Covid loan losses are estimated to be around £17bn and we're apparently not bothered about that.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

I very much doubt 3/4 of applications will be successful for the current arrivals.

TheBigBean

Korean women give birth to 0.78 children on average. Life expectancy of Korean women is 87 years.

Not just the UK with problems on that front.

super_davo

For further reference, Pensions in the UK cost £112.5billion, with the figure being £2billion over budget, in part because the triple lock has increased the bill by £9billion last year. Debt interest is £110.5 billion. Borrowing per year is £68billion.

Say we magically eliminate all costs arising from our international obligations, where are we planning to find the other £65billion from?

The thing I find depressing is there are some people stupid enough to fall for these distractionary tactics.

First.Aspect

wallace_and_gromit said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

And shovelling snow.

Not on the west coast. Temperate.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

And shovelling snow.

Not on the west coast. Temperate.

He meant shovelling rain.

wallace_and_gromit

First.Aspect said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Is this what was supposed to happen?

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1692212494570319944

Which paradise land should we all go it?

Brother emigrated to Canada (BC). Has since contracted for his former UK employer from Canada. Extra cost for them (they couldn't find someone local) and less tax for the UK. Now working for Canadian government.

Depending where he is, living costs are astronomical over there. And if they aren't ypu will spend a lot of time waiting to get over a bridge, one way or another.

And shovelling snow.

Not on the west coast. Temperate.

Sorry. Thinking like a skier.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Korean women give birth to 0.78 children on average. Life expectancy of Korean women is 87 years.

Not just the UK with problems on that front.

Ah, you listen to Radio 4 I see.

Don't they have a projection of something like 17 people in three generations time for every 100 in the generation?

Whereas ours is more like 60.

Where are the extra 40 people going to come from Stevo? Or is the plan to double productivity somehow?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

The figures are pretty clear and well documented. Last year was a peak at just under 90k, so no need to extrapolate from one day. About 3/4 of those will be granted asylum. Cost of whole asylum system is about £3bn a year as already posted. Could be cheaper if temporary accommodation was sorted instead of insisting on block booking hotels but still chicken feed in the scheme of things. For comparison, Covid loan losses are estimated to be around £17bn and we're apparently not bothered about that.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

I very much doubt 3/4 of applications will be successful for the current arrivals.

Quite possibly. Not sure whether it's 3/4 or 3/5 makes much difference to the two issues listed above.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

I don't think this gets enough coverage. Withdrawing from the ECHR would allow a few more deportations and a handful of transfers to Rwanda, but it wouldn't remove the UK's obligation to take in those who report in the required fashion who have a valid claim. So one wonders if those agitating for withdrawing from the ECHR are thick or have ulterior motives unrelated to immigration.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Korean women give birth to 0.78 children on average. Life expectancy of Korean women is 87 years.

Not just the UK with problems on that front.

Ah, you listen to Radio 4 I see.

Don't they have a projection of something like 17 people in three generations time for every 100 in the generation?

Whereas ours is more like 60.

Where are the extra 40 people going to come from Stevo? Or is the plan to double productivity somehow?

So logically we should be flying the arrivals to Korea and not Rwanda.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Korean women give birth to 0.78 children on average. Life expectancy of Korean women is 87 years.

Not just the UK with problems on that front.

Ah, you listen to Radio 4 I see.

Don't they have a projection of something like 17 people in three generations time for every 100 in the generation?

Whereas ours is more like 60.

Where are the extra 40 people going to come from Stevo? Or is the plan to double productivity somehow?

I don't. A coincidence it seems.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.

It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.

More than one poster has said that we are signed up to treaties that we have to honour by taking asylum seekers in and that we should make it easier for people to apply for asylum. Read between the lines and that is effectively saying 'come on in'.

So what other solutions do you suggest?

You need to articulate the problem. What is *the problem* that you think needs solving?

Too many people coming to the UK illegally. Do I really need to spell it out?

Well yes. It's not illegal to come to the UK to claim asylum, so who do you mean? People who overstay their visa? Why is it too many when it's a small percentage of overall immigration?

You're trying to deflect now. Seems you are in denial.

Denial about what? You seem to be struggling to say what you mean.

I'm very clearly and explicitly pro-immigration. It's an economic necessity. If there's still a labour shortage after we give out over 1 million visas in a year *that's* a problem. The numbers claiming asylum are small enough to make no material difference to that so we are just left with the manufactured problems of people smuggling and temporary accommodation.

A few stats: on one day this week, 440 people arrived in small boats in Kent. Annualised that is around 160,000 and over a decade 1.6m. The current estimate of housing must those that are already here (never mind the significant number that will arrive), is £6m a day - £2.2bn a year or £22bn over a decade. So clearly no issues here....

The figures are pretty clear and well documented. Last year was a peak at just under 90k, so no need to extrapolate from one day. About 3/4 of those will be granted asylum. Cost of whole asylum system is about £3bn a year as already posted. Could be cheaper if temporary accommodation was sorted instead of insisting on block booking hotels but still chicken feed in the scheme of things. For comparison, Covid loan losses are estimated to be around £17bn and we're apparently not bothered about that.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

I very much doubt 3/4 of applications will be successful for the current arrivals.

Quite possibly. Not sure whether it's 3/4 or 3/5 makes much difference to the two issues listed above.

I like my numbers to be reliable.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Korean women give birth to 0.78 children on average. Life expectancy of Korean women is 87 years.

Not just the UK with problems on that front.

Ah, you listen to Radio 4 I see.

Don't they have a projection of something like 17 people in three generations time for every 100 in the generation?

Whereas ours is more like 60.

Where are the extra 40 people going to come from Stevo? Or is the plan to double productivity somehow?

I don't. A coincidence it seems.

Podcasts?

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention 🙂

I don't think this gets enough coverage. Withdrawing from the ECHR would allow a few more deportations and a handful of transfers to Rwanda, but it wouldn't remove the UK's obligation to take in those who report in the required fashion who have a valid claim. So one wonders if those agitating for withdrawing from the ECHR are thick or have ulterior motives unrelated to immigration.

We're not going to do either. It's just a thing that is said to get people on side. Much like the barge and Rwanda it's all a performance.