Forum menu
It's not a lie. There was a program on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago where the presenter went into an 'asylum' hotel and interviewed a family there. The father openly admitted that many migrants were just looking for a better life.
I am sorry but I would rather believe the legal process in the UK which grants refugee status to the majority of those who arrive in a small boat, than what some geezer in a hotel room somewhere tells a presenter on a Radio 4 programme. It's a no-brainer.
The claim that, quote, "the vast majority are economic migrants" is a lie.
Btw I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that refugees claiming asylum shouldn't be "looking for a better life". I am sure that it conforms with the definition of a refugee.
Of these, 61,706 were granted asylum or some other protection status, and 35,125 were refused.
So according to the UK government (not some geezer in a hotel somewhere) almost two thirds of small boat arrivals are granted asylum or some other protection status, I call that the "the vast majority".
How about educating people with the truth instead of going along with a lie? 💡
Edit: To give some context to the figure of 61,706, which covers 7 years, the population of the UK is currently 69.3 million,. The idea that 61,706 people could have had a significantly negative effect on the UK's economy (the 6th largest in the world) is ludicrous
The claim that, quote, "the vast majority are economic migrants" is a lie.
Btw I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that refugees claiming asylum shouldn't be "looking for a better life". I am sure that it conforms with the definition of a refugee.
You have no way of knowing that unless you’ve gone an actually asked them.
Honestly, I don’t care as it’s not relevant to the issue. What relevant is the 140k who have arrived by boat since 2020. Whether it’s genuine escape from persecution or economic opportunity it’s still a problem to be solved.
ignoring it or accusing people of being far right isn’t going to solve the problem of a rate of immigration that outstrips the countries ability to absorb the additional population.
You have no way of knowing that unless you’ve gone an actually asked them.
Maybe those processing their claims ask them......."as a refugee are you looking for a better life or would you prefer if things were even more shite for you?"
[1] So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally.
[2] If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
[3] The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers ... and that the vast majority are economic migrants
[4] Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
There's a lot of stuff to address here so apologies for the numbering.
[1] it is not illegal to arrive by small boat and claim asylum. It is not safe, either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-it-illegal-to-cross-the-channel-on-a-small-boat
[2] People who claim asylum once they are here on another visa weren't issued visas and / or admitted on the basis of allowing them to claim asylum once they are here. For example, a student that claims asylum once they are here enjoyed a safe and legal route to study in the UK, not to claim asylum in the UK.
[3] People might believe that, but it's not true. 98% of small boat arrivals are asylum seekers. The majority (68%) of those asylum seekers have their claims approved as refugees.
[4] i imagine it would be a pretty miserable experience if we did, @chrismac, and I wouldn't fancy it much tbh.
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Then we wouldn't be able to work, and we would have €6.80 (£6) a day to live on - for food, clothing, non-prescription medicine, everything. I don't think we would enjoy that either, @chrismac.
And plus we'd be separated from our families or perhaps even worse trying to get our kids some kind of education while being shuffled from pillar to post with practically no money. I wouldn't like that much.
It sounds pretty shit to me tbh.
https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/#housing
Mike Tapped
The tapped bit is me messing. Just so you know it's Mike Tapp.
I had to Google Mike Tapp to make sure he wasn't a parody account like Sir Michael Take. What an absolute disgrace.
Of these, 61,706 were granted asylum or some other protection status, and 35,125 were refused.
So according to the UK government (not some geezer in a hotel somewhere) almost two thirds of small boat arrivals are granted asylum or some other protection status, I call that the "the vast majority".
How about educating people with the truth instead of going along with a lie? 💡
Edit: To give some context to the figure of 61,706, which covers 7 years, the population of the UK is currently 69.3 million,. The idea that 61,706 people could have had a significantly negative effect on the UK's economy (the 6th largest in the world) is ludicrous
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals. So 39%, the rest have either been refused or have withdrawn their applications.
[1] So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally.
[2] If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
[3] The nub of the issue IMHO is that very few people believe that those who arrive illegally are actually asylum seekers ... and that the vast majority are economic migrants
[4] Imagine if you or I just turned up in France or anywhere else in Europe and said. I fancy living here can you put me up whilst I get sorted please.
There's a lot of stuff to address here so apologies for the numbering.
[1] it is not illegal to arrive by small boat and claim asylum. It is not safe, either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-it-illegal-to-cross-the-channel-on-a-small-boat
[2] People who claim asylum once they are here on another visa weren't issued visas and / or admitted on the basis of allowing them to claim asylum once they are here. For example, a student that claims asylum once they are here enjoyed a safe and legal route to study in the UK, not to claim asylum in the UK.
[3] People might believe that, but it's not true. 98% of small boat arrivals are asylum seekers. The majority (68%) of those asylum seekers have their claims approved as refugees.
[4] i imagine it would be a pretty miserable experience if we did, @chrismac, and I wouldn't fancy it much tbh.
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Then we wouldn't be able to work, and we would have €6.80 (£6) a day to live on - for food, clothing, non-prescription medicine, everything. I don't think we would enjoy that either, @chrismac.
And plus we'd be separated from our families or perhaps even worse trying to get our kids some kind of education while being shuffled from pillar to post with practically no money. I wouldn't like that much.
It sounds pretty shit to me tbh.
https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/#housing
I haven't seen inside asylum seeker accommodation in France, but if it's anything like the UK, it's pretty ****ing grim. In any case, most asylum seekers in France end up initially homeless. So I think that would be quite difficult for us.
Im sure it is. Its not supposed to be nice. If you are a genuine asylum seeker then the fact you are now safe, have accommodation, access to food and some healthcare is a big win. If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
Its not supposed to be nice.
Why on earth shouldn't it be nice? Whether your application is approved or whether you are going to be deported there is no reason why asylum seeker accommodation should be "pretty ****ing grim".
The real scandal is that these claims should take so long to process. Whether the accommodation is nice or not wouldn't matter so much if it didn't take so long. Ten years ago about 90% were decided within 6 months now the average is 12 months.
Apart from anything else what a waste of money. Let people entitled to stay start working and looking after themselves as quickly as possible and deport those that are going to be deported as quickly as possible.
The "problem" is the system, not asylum seekers.
It’s not supposed to be nice.
Is it wrong to hope another forum user ends up living a miserable life? Perhaps they already are…
Anyway, this summarises how I’ve been thinking about all this today…
Nadia Whittome MP
Labour MP for Nottingham East
[ source ]
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals.
So, 35,000 out of 159,000 have their application refused.
Chris you are Robert Jenrick and I claim my fiver
Paintings were considered too welcoming at Kent centre for lone children arriving in UK
Bleedin lone children escaping horrendous conditions expect to come here in the UK and be welcomed with a friendly almost homelike environment!
It's supposed to be grim!
Its not supposed to be nice.
The real scandal is that these claims should take so long to process. Whether the accommodation is nice or not wouldn't matter so much if it didn't take so long. Ten years ago about 90% were decided within 6 months now the average is 12 months.
1) Pretty disappointing that @chrismac 's one observation on being shown he's talked a load of nonsense is "I don't care if it's not nice".
2) I suspect part of the reason why decisions were taken more quickly in the past was that there wasn't real review happening. I have been involved in one phase of a fairly straightforward asylum application and it really takes time to prepare and consider fairly. Getting the punters to explain their story, getting the underlying evidence (especially if docs have to be got from problematic countries), writing it up, submitting it, having it reviewed properly. It all takes time.
However, if you just bodge it or make it all up (like some "immigration advisors" tell their clients to do) or if you don't bother reviewing it (like some civil servants can't do), then it goes a lot quicker...
So 30-40% of asylum seekers do arrive by small boat illegally. If the other 60-70% arrive legally then clearly there is a way, used my the majority to arrive in the UK legally and claim asylum.
See that bit where it says asylum seekers are not here illegally, did you miss that? One can not be here unlawfully if claiming asylum no matter how one arrives.
Nothing like a bit of selective quotation. The next paragraph in the report states that asylum has been granted to 61,706 out of 159,180 arrivals.
So, 35,000 out of 159,000 have their application refused.
no 159000 application less 62,000 accepted = 97,000 not accepted
I agree that the process for evaluating applications needs to be much quicker so those who are accepted can get on with their lives and the rest deported
The worst thing about all this is that human weasel Chris Philp is all over the airwaves. He really is a loathsome little turd. He’s like an even shitter Gavin Williamson
Doesn’t mean accepted either. It means not granted
Indeed. So why are you including it on the “rejected” side of the ledger, rather than relying on cases that have actually been adjudicated?
If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
So tell me how you decide who gets the nice accommodation as sounds like you only want those without a valid case to have not very nice accommodation to stay in until their case is processed. You see the problem don't you?
If you are hear because you want to make a new life in the Uk rather than somewhere else then I dont care if its not very nice.
If you deliberately make life shit for people then if they have the opportunity to go elsewhere they will. That means that the doctors, engineers, scientists, police, nurses, teachers will eventually get pissed off and go, and those that have no easily exported skills will stay. Those that have somewhere nice to go will go and those that come from somewhere really poor/unpleasant/dangerous will stay because however bad life is made for them in the UK it's better than where they come from. All this means you provoke a brain drain amongst those with choice and still end up with those who have no real choice because they have the least to offer.
Give people real opportunities, things to look forward to and hope, and they'll contribute far more than if they are stuck somewhere with no rights, hassle, expenses and continuous harrassment.
Like Brexit it's shooting oneself in the foot, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Create a hostile environment and it's the people who can who'll go.
They're celebrating 50 000 being kicked out. Of that 50 000 I'd wager many would have filled jobs that need doing if they'd been given a chance.
But if it keeps the gammony xenophobic types happy... .
Read this:
The worst thing about all this is that human weasel Chris Philp is all over the airwaves. He really is a loathsome little turd. He’s like an even shitter Gavin Williamson
I actually complained to the BBC about a Chris Philp interview where he was allowed to make wildly inaccurately claims about disability benefits. Obviously it came to nothing but it did demonstrate what an odious little shit Philp is. It's amazing that when you think the Tories have produced their lowest moral being, they can still go lower...
Well some Labour MPs get it
“I didn’t fight an election as a Labour MP to bundle distressed children on to deportation flights,” one MP said. Another MP in a Green-facing seat said they were facing an enormous backlash on social media. “It’s all terrible. Straight out of the far-right playbook.
But the great news for Sir Keir Starmer is :
The Conservatives have said they could support the government to pass the tough new laws in the event of a major Labour rebellion.
Although it doesn't explain how a Labour Prime Minister, with the second largest Labour majority in history, might end up needing support from the most right-wing Tory Party in living memory.
No wait, yes it does, he's turned out to be a right-wing racist himself !
And also from the above link :
"The government has already been forced to clarify that it did not intend to proactively seize jewellery from refugees."
So that is good news then because presumably it means that their gold teeth will be safe.
It really is a sobering thought that we are talking about a "Labour" government.
The most astonishing feature of that poll imo is the surge of support for the Greens since the general election, which is actually more impressive than the surge of support for Reform.
According the latest YouGov poll Reform have almost doubled their support since the general election but the Greens have easily more than doubled theirs.
The Greens level pegging with the Tories and easily ahead of the LibDems isn't something that I expected to see any time soon. Well done Starmer!
Absolutely. And this government adopting a Reform attitude towards a target group is only going to further legitimise and swing support towards Reform, not away from it.
My reply was to soberity's post about us "being boned" (because a parliament where Reform get a large seat count and the most votes looks more and more like it is coming). As for your point Ernie, yes, Labour adopting Reform's frontline target group (among other issues) is absolutely also pushing many more people towards the Green Party. Assuming Labour continues with this direction of travel, I suspect by the time we get a vote, that will include me.
More evidence that chasing the anti-immigrant vote just drives people to either proper anti-immigrant parties or to parties who actively argue against launching brown people into the Sun.
Seems to me like there is a lesson there for the government. In fact, you'd think it's one they are already well aware of so why are they still desperately trying (and failing) to attract Reform voters while driving their own voters towards the Greens?
Is it fear of the effect of doing a u-turn, sunk cost fallacy, or just pure pride and the inability to admit you are wrong?
Is it fear of the effect of doing a u-turn,
In the case of Sir Keir Starmer it certainly isn't fear of doing a u-turn ! 😂
This is what Starmer said to Labour Party members 5 years ago when he stood to be Labour leader:
My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power – so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve.
Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.
......."An immigration system based on compassion and dignity"........
It turns out that his immigration system is based much more on what Reform voters want, which doesn't include a whole lot of compassion and dignity.
The most astonishing feature of that poll imo is the surge of support for the Greens since the general election, which is actually more impressive than the surge of support for Reform.
According the latest YouGov poll Reform have almost doubled their support since the general election but the Greens have easily more than doubled theirs.
The Greens level pegging with the Tories and easily ahead of the LibDems isn't something that I expected to see any time soon. Well done Starmer!
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
Seriously why is Starmer so bloody stupid?
He has the evidence of his Corbyn pledges he stole.
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
Not necessarily since farage is offering quite a few left wing policies.
Oddly Starmer doesnt seem to want to use them.
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
An interesting comment but one that does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny.
According to that YouGov poll the combined Green, LibDem, and SNP vote, totals 33% which suggests that there is a significant market for policies which are not right-wing populist.
And that total excludes Labour voters like Kelvin who are dissatisfied with Starmer embracing right-wing populist, when you add them to the picture you can't be that far off half of voters.
Rather than surrendering to the hard-right and publicly agreeing with them that refugees are a huge problem which are affecting the lives of ordinary Brits, thereby making Nigel Farage's job even easier, how about Sir Keir Starmer makes the moral and practical case for a radical alternative?
Or better still just resign?
I don't often comment on these threads but I'm just so ****ed off at the moment and need to rant.
I voted Labour last time round - mostly to get our odious Tory MP and chief whip out of our constituency - but also was willingly naive enough to hope that the Keir Starmer, who came to public attention as an effective shadow Brexit minister, would make for a boring but effective prime minister. I wanted boring government and I wanted some compassion, empathy and hope back from our national government.
Labour parachuted a young lad into our seat which was a shame when we had previously had good local candidates but a vote for any other party round here is a complete waste. It has been Tory/Labour dominated since forever.
He's actually turned out to be quite good; speaking well to get local issues raised and supported in the HoP.
But that's overshadowed by the shitstorm of a government. I actually cannot believe how awful they have been and how awful they appear to be planning to be. Just not a Labour government in anyway.
Meanwhile the Reform shouty voices on local social media get louder and bolder. It's sickening.
I have no idea what the Green's plans are for recruiting decent local candidates across the country; in a way they have the same problem as Reform - how do you vet and ensure all your candidates aren't batshit?
In the meantime we've got Senedd elections in May and I have the horrible feeling that we'll have an english national party in charge of Welsh budgets. I have no idea who I'll vote for then; Plaid, Green, ****ing Lib Dem if I have to. I don't think Welsh Labour have been as bad as the UK version but I have no belief that they aren't facing utter wipeout in May.
Let's just say I'm not expecting to be represented by anyone will views aligned to mine, at a local or national level, for a very long time.
Seriously why is Starmer so bloody stupid?
Pretty hilarious that after the cluster****s of last week that his first action is to pick a fight with his MPs on an issue they feel strongly about which will again demonstrate his isolation and weakness to the voters and country he governs. It's almost like they sit around in no. 10 and imagine strategies and policies guaranteed to make a shit situation even worse. I'm beginning to wonder if Starmer has a submissive-masochism fetish. Either that or he really is more politically imcompetent than Sunak and Truss before him.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
Not necessarily since farage is offering quite a few left wing policies.
Oddly Starmer doesnt seem to want to use them.
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
There's no sense in self-delusion and complaining progressive politics are more popular in the UK than right wing populism (at least this year...).
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
As I said on the Scottish thread, there are a lot of people who need to shit or get off the pot.
Many people are still saying they are going to vote Labour or Tory not so much out of agreement with their policies but more because they desperately cling to the idea that things are somehow going to go back to the way they were before.
And then you've got the joy of FPTP where people are going to vote for anyone who means the party they really hate doesn't get in.
You really are determined to misuse statistics today, for some reason.
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead
I know this is a difficult concept but you could try reading what I wrote vs just making shit up. I grant you are good at the latter but it makes discussions pretty pointless.
I said that Reform is offering various left wing policies, or at least those which are seen as left wing nowadays, such as around nationalisation and even some of their social policies. Its frankly nuts to ignore that reform are doing this and reasonable to ask why Starmers labour only counter the right wing policies.
Now, of course, an obvious response is right wing populist parties have a long tradition of doing this and then not delivering. I could godwin the thread but lets just go with Johnson and levelling up.
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
You really are determined to misuse statistics today, for some reason.
I have not misused statistics at all. 🤷♂️
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
Sure.
The part I disagree with is your 'creative' use of statistics to come to the conclusion that right wing populism has 63% of the vote share.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not? Then just add up the percentages for the parties that are right wing populist, and there you have right wing populism's predicted vote share. 🤷♂️
For me, the Tories and Reform are currently right wing populists, and that's 44% (27%+17%) of the vote compared to 17% for the Greens on the progressive side.
I don't think that right wing populism is a fair characterisation of Labour's platform (not least because they're neither popular not pursuing any coherent ideology...it's kind of a no-wing unpopulism) but plenty of Big Hitters here are convinced that Starmer is practically Goebbels, so if you believe that then right wing populism has a 63% share.
I have no idea what the Green's plans are for recruiting decent local candidates across the country; in a way they have the same problem as Reform - how do you vet and ensure all your candidates aren't batshit?
It won't really be the same problem as Reform. People whose primary motivation for being involved in politics is a fear and hatred of people who are "different" are far more likely to be batshit than someone who concerned about the environment and a fair society.
Also the GP is a long established political party with members have typically been involved in politics for a very long time.
There are nearly a thousand Green councillors in the UK, how many have made the headlines as a result of being kicked out or resigning in disgrace compared to Reform?