Forum menu
Not the same policy at all though, is it. “Echoes” says it all. Refusing to allow people to apply for asylum once here is not the same as allowing them to apply, carrying out due process, and then relocating those found not to have a case to stay.
Okay as someone who's glad we have this govt over the alternatives on offer I get heart sink from the soundbites on immigration. But it's a white paper. Let's see where it actually lands as legislation. I suspect that a bit of public wailing from the likes of me may be part of the messaging they want.
Also, labour has a bit of a (dishonourable, union/grassroots informed) history with immigration controls, thinking 1968 act and early 70s expelled Ugandan asians. European court setting that one eventually right...
We don’t want to go back to those times though, do we.
Not the same policy at all though, is it.
No of course it isn't the same policy, it is a different policy.
But the comment made by the Green Party co-leader is absolutely spot-on, wouldn't you say?
The comparison is that it is another asylum linked nonsensical gimmick. And not least because the Albanians have made it clear that they aren't interested, wtf was the point of the trip?
And what would we be saying if Starmer was a Tory prime minister?
I’d be saying the same thing if this policy was from any party, in any country. The difference between the relocations being of those who go through a fair system, and completely denying people the chance to apply for asylum is absolutely key to this. As I think you’ll find I said in the thread you linked to (or at least in one or two of the other similar threads where the mad hat unworkable unfair and likely illegal Tory policy was talked about).
Also, labour has a bit of a (dishonourable, union/grassroots informed) history with immigration controls, thinking 1968 act and early 70s expelled Ugandan asians. European court setting that one eventually right...
I don't honestly don't know what you are referring to but be that as it may are you suggesting that it's okay for Starmer to use racist-friendly rhetoric because 60 years ago the Labour Party was allegedly a bit racist?
If we are going down that whataboutry road you can find much more recent examples of racism within the Labour Party, in fact as recent as Keir Starmer's current leadership :
The difference between the relocations being of those who go through a fair system, and completely denying people the chance to apply for asylum is absolutely key to this.
Well if you want to focus solely on the difference between the two policies the obvious one is that Rwanda was for successful asylum applications whilst Starmer's Albania was for unsuccessful asylum applications.
But people are understandingly more interested in the similarities between the two policies, ie both are clearly nonsensical gimmicks designed to appeal to racists and bigots.
Nicely summed up here. :
Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer said: “Mere months after rightly denouncing the last government’s failed Rwanda scheme as a gimmick and a waste of taxpayer money, Starmer is now looking for his own knock off version.
“Instead of wasting more taxpayer money trying to look tough, it’s time Starmer got a grip of the real driving force behind smuggling gangs: the fact that for most people who might need and be eligible to seek asylum in the UK, there is simply no safe and managed way to do so.”
I don’t agree with her (Politician skipping past details for soundbites shocker) in her conflation of the two policies. I do agree with her about improving routes to claiming asylum here.
"Island of strangers" I admit does seem unnecessary but I assume he's referring to a perceived lack of integration which some people find troubling. I grew up in a diverse city where fairly distinct geographical divisions between different races and religions persist. It never really bothered me, but some people find it troubling.
I don't know the context in which he said "incalculable damage" but assume it was a dig at the Tory open doors experiment. That would've been careless wording but he was right to criticise what the Tories did.
If Farage was saying the same things I might have interpreted it differently. But Farage has made a few openly racist comments in the past while leading parties with lots of racist members so I think we all know what he's about. I'm prepared to give Starmer the benefit of the doubt and concentrate on the actual policy, which seems sensible.
Ordinary hard working people - as opposed to: wealthy people living in leafy areas who are generally sheltered from any negative effects of immigration and likely to benefit from the availability of cheap labour as well as upward pressure on rent and house prices, and at the other end of the spectrum the people who could work but choose to live off the state instead. Nationality, race or religion aren't factors in whether somebody is an ordinary hard working person in my mind.
he was right to criticise what the Tories did.
What do you mean? The Tories should have limited immigration of care workers and NHS staff?
Shouldn't have allowed net immigration to rise to an all time record of nearly 1 million people in 2023.
So now you want to blame the Tories for the global pandemic?
The reason that net migration was an all time record 906K in 2023 was because in the preceding couple of years immigration into the UK was severely restricted due to the pandemic, in 2020 net migration was 34K, the lowest figure for about 25 years, although obviously Starmer won't use that figure as he attempts to demonise immigrants.
The 2023 net migration figures represents the surge caused by people who had put immigration into the UK on hold, by 2024 the figure had significantly fallen.
As I have repeatedly said there is probably a very good case for reducing net migration but that case can be made perfectly adequately without the Prime Minister publicly claiming that those who arrived in 2023 have caused incalculable damage to the UK. FFS
That is precisely the sort of hate-fuelled rhetoric which inspires knuckle-dragging morons to attack people who look like the immigrants who have 'done incalculable damage to the UK'.
Starmer is of course fully aware of that, he isn't a complete idiot and won't have forgotten about the anti-immigration race riots of last summer, but like Nigel Farage he obviously doesn't care as long as he can get some personal political milage out of his divisive rhetoric.
The reason that net migration was an all time record 906K in 2023 was because in the preceding couple of years immigration into the UK was severely restricted due to the pandemic
I'm open to being convinced that this is true but if so would expect to see it replicated in other comparable countries. Having just searched for comparable data on France and Germany, it appears they were both well short of record levels in 2023.
I also checked Australia and Canada and they both do seem to have experienced spikes, albeit having gone through different COVID experiences.
Shouldn't have allowed net immigration to rise to an all time record of nearly 1 million people in 2023.
So which immigrants should they have stopped from coming? Be specific, with numbers please.
Having just searched for comparable data on France and Germany, it appears they were both well short of record levels in 2023.
It really isn't reasonable to compare immigration trends between different countries. There are a whole lot of different factors affecting individual countries with regards to immigration, currently Israel is experiencing negative net migration, I wonder why that might be?
But okay if you want to play that card and claim that the pandemic didn't play a significant part in the UK's net migration figures I'll play too......how about 2020 when the figure was 34K then ?
Surely we should be celebrating the fact that the Tories managed to bring net migration to its lowest levels in 25 years, lower than even under Labour?
And what about the fact that net migration was actually falling when Labour came to government in July 2024?
Of course none of this addresses the issue of Starmer's highly incendiary, divisive, and dangerous rhetoric, which blamed those immigrants (whatever the figures) of causing incalculable damage to the UK.
That is the single most important aspect of Starmer's now infamous speech, his rhetoric, not the figures which he used, and what people right across the political spectrum and the media are discussing.
Surely we should be celebrating the fact that the Tories managed to bring net migration to its lowest levels in 25 years,
...and then taking it to its highest level since....?
So the very latest opinion poll out now, taken after Sir Keir Starmer's speech accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to the country, gives Reform a 12 point lead over Labour
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-14th-may-2025/
It turns out that Reform voters don't appear to be deserting Nigel Farage for the new racist Starmer Labour Party.
Who could have anticipated that? I thought the whole point of the dangerous and divisive rhetoric was that it was justified because it would bolster support for Labour?
I guess Starmer just needs to crank up the dog-whistling and racist immigrant blaming a tad more. That should do it.
Again, Starmer's lack of political nous (which I thought he had) is ridiculous and frightening.
How can he not see that engaging in a dog-whistle death spiral with an insurgent populist party, with no track record to examine, is futile? Anyone who votes Reform is a lost cause. He has to shore up the support of moderates, FFS. Or we'll stay home on polling day.
Ten months. And all he has done is play into Farage's hands.
What a prat.
GB news?, The perfect stablemate for starmer’s rhetoric…….what a ****ing t watt
Ten months. And all he has done is play into Farage's hands.
What a prat.
Agreed... what the chuff is he doing? none of this recent bullshit was nessesary...
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
What a ****ing coward.
The plot is falling apart. I'm fully expecting Starmer to pull off a mask and Farage pop up like Mission Impossible.
Because of all the back-hole bullshit where we started and the inability to have a plan and spend some decent money on fixing things at the level it needs - Starmer has simply decided this 'pick on the weak" route to be easier.
People won't buy it as they expect Labour to substantially improve their lives. Nothing"s really changed about mine for the better. There's a bit more pothole actions but literally - that's it.
I also think we will still get a bad economic downturn - there's more evidence: lack of food on the shelves recently that I've seen. Not enough investment going into green projects - not enough schemes or grants being delivered for business.
Basically interest rate drops are the only systematic positive thing that is happening on the macro front.
That won't be enough I'm afraid.
The plot is falling apart. I'm fully expecting Starmer to pull off a mask and Farage pop up like Mission Impossible.
Because of all the back-hole bullshit where we started and the inability to have a plan and spend some decent money on fixing things at the level it needs - Starmer has simply decided this 'pick on the weak" route to be easier.
People won't buy it as they expect Labour to substantially improve their lives. Nothing"s really changed about mine for the better. There's a bit more pothole actions but literally - that's it.
I also think we will still get a bad economic downturn - there's more evidence: lack of food on the shelves recently that I've seen. Not enough investment going into green projects - not enough schemes or grants being delivered for business.
Basically interest rate drops are the only systematic positive thing that is happening on the macro front.
That won't be enough I'm afraid.
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
Yep. And the forces unleashed by that ****ing stupid referendum are now really coming back to bite.
Which is yet another message Starmer really ought to be getting through his thick skull. For the likes of Farage and his voters, enough is never enough. Fantastic soundbite from Call Me Dave about UKIP/Reform types never taking 'yes' for an answer.
Sadly, CMD needed to be less good at neat soundbites after the event and more good in the not losing his bottle department.
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
Oh come on, this thread isn't the place to discuss the issue in detail but both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported calling a referendum on EU membership.
In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum, not the Tories. Only the SNP were consistently opposed to an EU referendum.
Which is yet another message Starmer really ought to be getting through his thick skull. For the likes of Farage and his voters, enough is never enough. Fantastic soundbite from Call Me Dave about UKIP/Reform types never taking 'yes' for an answer.
sadly true
Shouldn't have allowed net immigration to rise to an all time record of nearly 1 million people in 2023.
So which immigrants should they have stopped from coming? Be specific, with numbers please.
Health and care workers down to about 50k and short term only. Dependents limited to children under 16 only and applicant to demonstrate funds or salary offer sufficient to cover the costs of their upbringing.
Student visas, can't give you a number but refuse adult dependents and see where that gets us. Make staying in the country after graduation contingent on receipt of a graduate job offer with a minimum salary of something like £28k and see where that gets us.
Something like that. I haven't read the labour white paper yet but I'd expect that has some reasonable ideas.
Do you think net immigration of 1 million per year is good and sustainable and won't have any negative effects on anybody already living here?
Do you think net immigration of 1 million per year is good and sustainable and won't have any negative effects on anybody already living here?
We don't have 1 million net migration per year.
And you don't think that false and alarmist figures plus dangerous and divisive rhetoric will have any negative effect on people already living here?
If you have forgotten about the sensitivity of the subject of perhaps try to remember the riots across the UK last summer 💡
Ernie, are you saying that the large increase in immigration was only a rebound post-COVID? The graph doesn't seem to support that.
Although it's also worth posting this page in case anyone is thinking of Reform-advert style poor huddled masses looking for handouts:
In YE June 2024, 417,000 non-EU+ nationals came to live in the UK for work-related reasons. This is closely followed by study-related immigration (375,000 people). These estimates are consistent withHome Office data on visas granted to non-EU+ nationals.
Other reasons non-EU+ nationals came to live in the UK in YE June 2024 were:
asylum (84,000 people)
family reasons (76,000 people)
humanitarian reasons (67,000 people)
So of that million people, 79% were workers and students who are here legally on visas, which can be controlled at any time. So why the need for all this bluster? They are letting people conflate the small boat people with legal immigration, which is pretty disgraceful.
After the ward election fiasco one minister said 'we're the only party with a plan' (after 1 year in office!) What people were voting against was nothing to do with plans but rather what they'd already delivered. By killing off party democracy and creating inertia through fear, the leadership lose touch with the grass roots and hence become dependent on McSweeney, think tanks, advisors, pollsters, to direct policy and ofcourse it's a disaster.
Electoral statistics do not reveal the reasons and motives behind people's votes, those people voting Reform were not all thick racists, many naively thought they were protesting against the status quo. For party activists, door knocking in defence of austerity, militarism and racism doesn't seem like an attractive sell. This particular tanker has little chance of changing course in the next four years and it's likely to end with the implosion of the party as well as an increase in poverty and p poor growth. Boom.
Health and care workers down to about 50k and short term only. Dependents limited to children under 16 only and applicant to demonstrate funds or salary offer sufficient to cover the costs of their upbringing.
Student visas, can't give you a number but refuse adult dependents and see where that gets us. Make staying in the country after graduation contingent on receipt of a graduate job offer with a minimum salary of something like £28k and see where that gets us.
What would be the impact to cap health care at 50K?
How many dependants over 16 and insufficient funds if under 16?
How many student visa adult dependants?
It's great that you have some ideas but without any numbers they are pointless as not worth putting any effort into those ideas if a)the numbers are small and b)it would make no difference to anything anyway
If you reduced from your made up 1 million a year to say 500k per year what is the actual outcome of that and do any positives (can you name them please) outweigh the negatives (tax income, public services etc,.)
People just wanting something to be lower because they do is not really cutting it unless they are racist so have a 'justified' reason behind it although they will never be happy as there are clearly too many people here already who they don't like and worse still many were as British as they are.
Health and care workers down to about 50k and short term only. Dependents limited to children under 16 only and applicant to demonstrate funds or salary offer sufficient to cover the costs of their upbringing.
Student visas, can't give you a number but refuse adult dependents and see where that gets us. Make staying in the country after graduation contingent on receipt of a graduate job offer with a minimum salary of something like £28k and see where that gets us.
What would be the impact to cap health care at 50K?
How many dependants over 16 and insufficient funds if under 16?
How many student visa adult dependants?
It's great that you have some ideas but without any numbers they are pointless as not worth putting any effort into those ideas if a)the numbers are small and b)it would make no difference to anything anyway
If you reduced from your made up 1 million a year to say 500k per year what is the actual outcome of that and do any positives (can you name them please) outweigh the negatives (tax income, public services etc,.)
People just wanting something to be lower because they do is not really cutting it unless they are racist so have a 'justified' reason behind it although they will never be happy as there are clearly too many people here already who they don't like and worse still many are as British as they are.
Health and care workers down to about 50k and short term only. Dependents limited to children under 16 only and applicant to demonstrate funds or salary offer sufficient to cover the costs of their upbringing.
Student visas, can't give you a number but refuse adult dependents and see where that gets us. Make staying in the country after graduation contingent on receipt of a graduate job offer with a minimum salary of something like £28k and see where that gets us.
What would be the impact to cap health care at 50K?
How many dependants over 16 and insufficient funds if under 16?
How many student visa adult dependants?
It's great that you have some ideas but without any numbers they are pointless as not worth putting any effort into those ideas if a)the numbers are small and b)it would make no difference to anything anyway
If you reduced from your made up 1 million a year to say 500k per year what is the actual outcome of that and do any positives (can you name them please) outweigh the negatives (tax income, public services etc,.)
People just wanting something to be lower because they do is not really cutting it unless they are racist so have a 'justified' reason behind it although they will never be happy as there are clearly too many people here already who they don't like and worse still many are as British as they are.
Student visas, can't give you a number but refuse adult dependents and see where that gets us. Make staying in the country after graduation contingent on receipt of a graduate job offer with a minimum salary of something like £28k and see where that gets us.
How many University's do you think that might close down?
Due to the tuition fee cap alot of Uni's rely on overseas students to make up the losses. The higher education sector employs close to 500,000 across the country & gives good jobs in areas where not many opportunities exist.
They also contribute £265 billion to the economy.
A rare voice of sanity.
Ernie, are you saying that the large increase in immigration was only a rebound post-COVID?
i am saying firstly that net migration is not one million a year, secondly that net migration fell last year, thirdly that dangerous rhetoric is dangerous,. and fourthly that you have screwed up the formatting on this page with your graph 😵💫
It's not my area of knowledge at all but it appears like the USA we have a right-wing split which is another boxed in job.
1) Right-wingers that believe we need migration to push the labour pool up which does eventually affect employment supply and demand and wages somewhere along the way.
2) Right-wingers that want shut of foreigners full stop.
Those two groups are in opposition and will ultimately destroy the capitalism's version of stablity in an economic model.
A rare voice of sanity.
Fair enough but Dunt has cheerleaded Starmer though all his other terrible decisions.
fourthly that you have screwed up the formatting on this page with your graph
In the spirit of disagreement I will say that the graph looks fine to me 🙂
But seriously though - it is a huge upward trend, isn't it? And the very existence of this graph is always going to be a huge political problem for any government, even if it's not a practical one (or a formatting one).
Is a spike a trend?
Also the graph shows that net migration peaked at half the claimed 1 million.
G
What would be the impact to cap health care at 50K?
How many dependants over 16 and insufficient funds if under 16?
How many student visa adult dependants?
It's great that you have some ideas but without any numbers they are pointless as not worth putting any effort into those ideas if a)the numbers are small and b)it would make no difference to anything anyway
If you reduced from your made up 1 million a year to say 500k per year what is the actual outcome of that and do any positives (can you name them please) outweigh the negatives (tax income, public services etc,.)
People just wanting something to be lower because they do is not really cutting it unless they are racist so have a 'justified' reason behind it although they will never be happy as there are clearly too many people here already who they don't like and worse still many are as British as they are.
I answered the questions I was asked. I think it's only fair that you answer some of my questions before you ask me even more.
What would you expect to happen to wages in a particular sector if the supply of employees trained and willing to work in that sector experiences a very large increase?
In deciles, which socioeconomic class is least likely to be negatively affected when wages for low skilled workers decrease?
What would you expect to happen to house prices and rental costs if the population experiences very rapid growth which is far beyond the country's capacity to build new houses?
Which socioeconomic class benefits most from rising rents and house prices?
What you would expect to happen to the availability of GP appointments when the population experiences sudden rapid growth far beyond the local NHS GP's ability to keep up?
Which socioeconomic class is most likely to have private health care and therefore never need to worry about getting an appointment at the local NHS GP?
One more:
Did any of your friends take their mum with them to uni and if so how was that received on campus?
If we really want to lower immigration then
1, Invest in lifelong education so working people can advance there careers into higher level jobs.
2, Create better working conditions and pay for lower paid jobs.
3, Tackle the cost of living crisis be..
a, Do GBenergy properly creating jobs and lower energy bills (new green deal) with proper investment into a nationalised energy instead of a quango giving money to corporations with guaranteed profits so they can bleed the consumers long term.
b, National house building programme, again nationalised and not a dodgy burn the processes so developers churn out overpriced shite.
4, Improve working conditions and pay at the lower end (so workers can actually afford to live instead of barely surviving) Universal basic income.
Or we could just continue with the hateful policies and punch down on those nasty foreigners, which appears to be the preferred case of the remaining starmerists who have let the mask slip and shown us who they really are now.
I answered the questions I was asked.
But more importantly you have successfully steered the thread away from the issue which currently concerns people, including many Labour MPs, the most..... the use of dangerous Farage-style anti-immigration rhetoric by Keir Starmer.
Did any of your friends take their mum with them to uni and if so how was that received on campus?
Back in my uni days that would depend on two things:
How many pints could she down before chundering.
And.
Is she fit?
🙂
If we really want to lower immigration then
1, Invest in lifelong education so working people can advance there careers into higher level jobs.
2, Create better working conditions and pay for lower paid jobs.
3, Tackle the cost of living crisis be..
a, Do GBenergy properly creating jobs and lower energy bills (new green deal) with proper investment into a nationalised energy instead of a quango giving money to corporations with guaranteed profits so they can bleed the consumers long term.
b, National house building programme, again nationalised and not a dodgy burn the processes so developers churn out overpriced shite.
4, Improve working conditions and pay at the lower end (so workers can actually afford to live instead of barely surviving) Universal basic income.
Or we could just continue with the hateful policies and punch down on those nasty foreigners, which appears to be the preferred case of the remaining starmerists who have let the mask slip and shown us who they really are now.
This should be the only game in town but appears to be too challenging for our amazing grown-up treasury-brained leaders.
Or we could just continue with the hateful policies and punch down on those nasty foreigners, which appears to be the preferred case of the remaining starmerists who have let the mask slip and shown us who they really are now.
Not directly at you but a general response to the many posts along similar lines over the past few pages: do we not think that dismissing anybody who expresses concerns about immigration by implyng they're a narrow-minded racist has had its day now? It's been done to death for at least 15 years but the concerns remain. Perhaps it's time to start listening to people rather than jumping at the opportunity to insult them?
I get that there probably are a fair few people who dislike immigration largely because they are racist or xenophobic or have been tricked into believing a load of rubbish by the likes of Farage.
But there's also legitimate concerns and I think we should have learned by now that dismissing those concerns in such a simplistic and insulting manner will never succeed in winning the argument, and will probably only lead to further entrenchment, division and pushing more people into the seemingly more welcoming arms of the populists.
For the avoidance of doubt I completely agree that immigration shouldn't be the main political point of the day and it annoys me that we're all wasting time arguing about this while other more important things go under the radar. But the reality is the populists will always bring immigration back to the forefront of the debate, so Labour can't just ignore it.