[Politics] The Labour Government

[chickens]

Why do so many people who live in flammable homes themselves see another person’s house on fire, and their first instinct is to pour petrol on the flames?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Why do so many people who live in flammable homes themselves see another person’s house on fire, and their first instinct is to pour petrol on the flames?

`When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea'​

 

[worthingseagull123]

Right, let’s dig in shall we? Apologies all, this will be a lengthy essay, it’s complex, feel free to ignore.

Firstly, of course net migration from non-EU nations is getting higher, as companies still need staff, and the native British population is insufficient to fill the vacancies. This immigration will be replacing the EU migration of previous times, where we had the ability to move across Europe, just as Europeans could move to the UK.

There’s famously an 18 year lag time between babies being born and them being able to take their place in the labour market. That becomes a 21 year lag for roles requiring a degree education, and a 25 year lag for highly skilled roles such as doctors. Gaps that are occurring now, require filling via migration or remain unfilled.

Incidentally our birth rate remains low as couples quite fairly decide that bringing children into the society we’ve created is not for them, increasing the need for migration.

I’ve taken the most up to date statistics from here (released in May of this year)

Long-term international migration, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Estimates of UK international migration.

www.ons.gov.uk

In 2023, 1,218,000 people migrated to the UK (this includes refugees/asylum seekers) with net migration at 685,000 as nearly half as many people left the UK in 2023.

Of the 1.2 million arrivals, 85% are non-EU, as we’ve made it clear we don’t like EU immigration, so we now seek our labour elsewhere, mainly from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, China and Zimbabwe.

10% of immigration was from the EU, while the remaining 5% was British nationals returning to the UK from living elsewhere.

Drilling into the non-EU migration as it’s by far the largest component of immigration (just over a million people) gives the following along with approximate percentages, not precise coz there weren’t precisely 1 million non-EU migrants.

Work: 423,000 (42%)
Study: 379,000 (37%)
Family: 75,000 (7%)
Asylum: 81,000 (8%)
Humanitarian: 50,000 (5%)
Other: 21,000 (1%)

So, of the just over a million incoming from outside the EU, about 13% (131,000) are on Asylum/humanitarian visas. The rest are plugging holes in our workforce, funding the UK’s universities or being reunited with their families.

So, we now know that there were 131,000 arrivals across the whole UK in 2023 for asylum or humanitarian reasons, and only 81,000 (8%) if we stick strictly to those seeking asylum. Incidentally 29,000 of that 81,000 arrived via small boats.

The Humanitarian visas are slightly different as they are granted via special schemes such as those for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.

We also need to remember that until an asylum claim is granted, individuals are not permitted to work, and are often detained. As such, it’s in Britain’s interests to process claims fast, otherwise the taxpayer is left footing the bill for accommodation and living costs for months, if not years.

Can we get any numbers on the ages of those arriving, to determine whether they are children, of working age or retired? It’s surprisingly difficult. I was hoping for a neat breakdown, but struggled to find such a thing, it would require diving into the data tables to an extent I simply don’t have time for.

The article you linked to is quite old, and was initially confusing as it both states that the employment rate is 51%, and the unemployment rate is 18%.

Having read into employment rates, it seems the employment rate is those gainfully employed, while the unemployment rate is those actively seeking work, but not currently in work. The reason for the discrepancy between the two is precisely that some are in full time education, some are independently wealthy, some are of retirement age, and others have health issues that make work an unrealistic prospect. So the figure for those that could be working but aren’t (as of 2019) was an unemployment rate of 18%.

The report that you link to is interesting, as it suggests that it takes an average of 15 years for those migrants who come in through the asylum seeking route to reach the same levels of employment as those migrants who entered the UK on work visas, suggesting that the UK is doing a less than stellar job at supporting these individuals from where they are upon entry into the UK, to a position where they’re employable.

Finally, applying that unemployment rate of 18% to 2023’s immigration figures, it suggests that in 2023, 14,580 individuals arrived into the UK who will be unemployed and seeking employment. These individuals will be dispersed across the UK, this group would not be of sufficient size to make a meaningful impact on any one area’s employment/unemployment figures.

Without ongoing support, prior research suggests that it will take them an average of 15 years to enter the labour market.

Essay ends.

Is it 81,000 people seeking asylum or is it 81,000 applications (the figure which would not include dependents)?

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

`When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea'​

Thanks for your bold lettering this is very much dyslexia friendly.

 

[chickens]

Is it 81,000 people seeking asylum or is it 81,000 applications (the figure which would not include dependents)?

It’s not immediately clear, but the data is taken from Home Office Borders and Immigration data.

I can’t see a scenario in which (for example) a mum and two kids arrive and the two kids aren’t logged in the figures. I can’t be 100%, but my gut instinct is that the figures will include those accompanying a main applicant.

 

[Eeyore]

I've just quoted something from X.
As for "reasoned assesments" and "pumping extremes" it's a thing called freedom of speech, as per the person calling for all Jews to be killed.

You said 'The same Palestinian Authority who advocate the killing of Jews'

That is a deliberate summary aimed to get a negative reaction. The organisation does not advocate this and is signed up to UN resolutions that support Israel's right to peaceful existence. That is not to say that there are some within who take a different view, such as the one you show. I'm sure a Google library could produce a number of quotes from prominent Israeli's, but I wouldn't place them here as a blanket judgement.

But you choose to pump an extreme view to attack a Labour minister. Perfect tabloid strategy. Thankfully for those who step back and take a broader view it won't wash.

 

[armchairclubber]

Following 9 months of the obliteration of Gaza still no announcement from Starmer or Lammy over the UK revoking licences for arms sales to Israel. Not even after Fridays ruling from the ICJ. (One would have thought an announcement would be immediate to abide by the ruling)

These two lawyers, as well as their Attorney General still push International Law to the wire and beyond.

Unfortunately this Labour Govt. needs more persuasion. Both Thatcher and Blair governments have previously had arms embargoes to Israel by comparison, without the destruction of Palestine.

“The ICJ fulfilled its legal and moral duties with this historic ruling. All states must now uphold their clear obligations: no aid, no assistance, no complicity, no money, no arms, no trade, no nothing – no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation,” he said.

ICJ says Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal

International Court of Justice says Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory amount to annexation.

www.aljazeera.com

No doubt, while Lammy has shaken hands with 'war criminal' Netenyahu, donations from Israel to himself and other prominent Labour MPs have been influential in their decision making.

Unfortunately UK Government petitions have currently stopped (as below) because of the General Election.

Archived Petition: Immediately revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel

The UK is complicit in arming Israel, and many regard Israel to be committing war crimes.

petition.parliament.uk

Though other petitions exist.

Oxfam GB | Stop arming Israel: sign our petition now

Demand the UK Government end all arms sales to Israel now, and do everything they can to push for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

www.oxfam.org.uk

 

[Nicks]

You said 'The same Palestinian Authority who advocate the killing of Jews'

That is a deliberate summary aimed to get a negative reaction. The organisation does not advocate this and is signed up to UN resolutions that support Israel's right to peaceful existence. That is not to say that there are some within who take a different view, such as the one you show. I'm sure a Google library could produce a number of quotes from prominent Israeli's, but I wouldn't place them here as a blanket judgement.

But you choose to pump an extreme view to attack a Labour minister. Perfect tabloid strategy. Thankfully for those who step back and take a broader view it won't wash.

What is that man saying in the video then ??
His words , not mine .

 

[Curious Orange]

Following 9 months of the obliteration of Gaza

I think that if the Israeli government actually wanted to 'obliterate' Gaza, they wouldn't have sent troops in and the job would have been finished months ago.

 

[armchairclubber]

I think that if the Israeli government actually wanted to 'obliterate' Gaza, they wouldn't have sent troops in and the job would have been finished months ago.

Really.

 

[aolstudios]

Well exactly. Could've been done easily.
They haven't

 

[aolstudios]

Obviously

 

[armchairclubber]

You said 'The same Palestinian Authority who advocate the killing of Jews'

That is a deliberate summary aimed to get a negative reaction. The organisation does not advocate this and is signed up to UN resolutions that support Israel's right to peaceful existence. That is not to say that there are some within who take a different view, such as the one you show. I'm sure a Google library could produce a number of quotes from prominent Israeli's, but I wouldn't place them here as a blanket judgement.

But you choose to pump an extreme view to attack a Labour minister. Perfect tabloid strategy. Thankfully for those who step back and take a broader view it won't wash.

He certainly did.

What is that man saying in the video then ??
His words , not mine .

No, you did say 'The same Palestinian Authority who advocate the killing of Jews'
These were your words, not that expressed in the video. That wouldn't make sense.

Furthermore, deliberately to garner a reaction, which you have now got.

Obviously.

I suggest you go back and re-read your post.

 

[worthingseagull123]

It’s not immediately clear, but the data is taken from Home Office Borders and Immigration data.

I can’t see a scenario in which (for example) a mum and two kids arrive and the two kids aren’t logged in the figures. I can’t be 100%, but my gut instinct is that the figures will include those accompanying a main applicant.

I think it is done on applications rather than people.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Following 9 months of the obliteration of Gaza still no announcement from Starmer or Lammy over the UK revoking licences for arms sales to Israel. Not even after Fridays ruling from the ICJ. (One would have thought an announcement would be immediate to abide by the ruling)

These two lawyers, as well as their Attorney General still push International Law to the wire and beyond.

Unfortunately this Labour Govt. needs more persuasion. Both Thatcher and Blair governments have previously had arms embargoes to Israel by comparison, without the destruction of Palestine.

“The ICJ fulfilled its legal and moral duties with this historic ruling. All states must now uphold their clear obligations: no aid, no assistance, no complicity, no money, no arms, no trade, no nothing – no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation,” he said.

ICJ says Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal

International Court of Justice says Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory amount to annexation.

www.aljazeera.com

No doubt, while Lammy has shaken hands with 'war criminal' Netenyahu, donations from Israel to himself and other prominent Labour MPs have been influential in their decision making.

Unfortunately UK Government petitions have currently stopped (as below) because of the General Election.

Archived Petition: Immediately revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel

The UK is complicit in arming Israel, and many regard Israel to be committing war crimes.

petition.parliament.uk

Though other petitions exist.

Oxfam GB | Stop arming Israel: sign our petition now

Demand the UK Government end all arms sales to Israel now, and do everything they can to push for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

www.oxfam.org.uk

Care to substantiate that slur?

 

[armchairclubber]

Care to substantiate that slur?

What slur? I can only see truth.

You of all people should know what's going on within your own party, particularly when so supportive and vocal.

Care to substantiate your slur?

It will be difficult. You are a complete and utter slur like that I have never known.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What slur? I can only see truth.

You of all people should know what's going on within your own party, particularly when so supportive and vocal.

Care to substantiate your slur?

It will be difficult. You are a complete and utter slur like that I have never known.

You suggested Lammy has taken money from Israel in order to go soft on Bibi. That's a slur.

 

[armchairclubber]

You suggested Lammy has taken money from Israel in order to go soft on Bibi. That's a slur.

Is it now. Then you had better go and prove it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is it now. Then you had better go and prove it.

You wrote:

No doubt, while Lammy has shaken hands with 'war criminal' Netenyahu, donations from Israel to himself and other prominent Labour MPs have been influential in their decision making.

There is the slur. Now you prove it!

 

[armchairclubber]

You wrote:

No doubt, while Lammy has shaken hands with 'war criminal' Netenyahu, donations from Israel to himself and other prominent Labour MPs have been influential in their decision making.

There is the slur. Now you prove it!

There is no slur. It's the truth.

Now for you prove it's a slur.