[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[worthingseagull123]

The best thing about having the press on one's side is that you can continually chip away at asylum seeker laws and introduce some of the most draconian systems in the world, cut off any and all legal routes to seeking asylum in your country, out source your responsibilities to a third country and slow down the processing of applications to snails pace all the while convincing your electorate that you are more lenient than other countries and a 'soft touch's.

Keep drinking the Kool aid people.

So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?

Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?

Can you advise?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Your first point explains why I disagree with your second. They were elected by winning seats in working class areas. They did this by focusing on the EU and immigration as the major problems for those communities. The real reasons they are not thriving are far more to do with the underinvestment and demise of manufacturing industry. They cannot / will not do anything to respond to those challenges because the potential solutions are either too expensive, or too Keynesian to fit their free market ideology. In those circumstances, they can't admit their impotency, so they need a convincing alternative explanation. Putting the blame on 'others' is a long established tactic of right wing populist politicians. Proposing seemingly simple solutions to very complex problems is another.

I see Starmer's position differently. Labour in opposition in the UK is in opposition to the current government, but is also effectively opposed by the majority of owners of media outlets. Starmer's reticence on this and a lot of other issues reflects that his present job is not to promote debate, but to get himself elected. To do this, he believes that he is better advised to focus attention on the faults of the government, than to propose alternatives that he is currently powerless to implement. Doing the latter would just encourage his opponents to focus on attacking his proposals, leaving him on the defence instead of attacking the government. This unspoken truth is why I have more patience with his seeming ineffectiveness than most on the left do. Corbyn openly went to war with the media and though his supporters loved him saying the things that they wanted to hear, he gave the media what it needed to destroy his credibility with a particular segment of working class voters. At present, the best that they can do with Starmer is say that he's boring. Given the endless supply of 'exciting' politicians that his opponents have inflicted upon us, a bit of tedious stability might be welcomed by a lot of us. I don't seem him as a good political campaigner, but as a proven sound admistrator. As you suggest, the real test of him will come if and when he is elected.

This is a good post.

But Starmer has not been quiet. There have been comments from Sir Keir about tackling Non-Doms and their tax avoidance (the opposite of the Tory ‘lefty lawyer’ gaslighting).

Because of this, be in no doubt at all that the personal attacks against Starmer from the Mail, Express and Sun will be at least on the level of the anti-Corbyn campaign. In fact, those rags will be trying to convince people he IS Corbyn.

As you say, any semblance of a policy or idea is going to be jumped on by the right wing press and spun into the sort of shite that was thrown at Corbyn. The longer Starmer keeps his mouth shut, the less they have to throw at him. Good tactics.

Johnson got elected with a back-of-the-fag packet manifesto and a three word slogan. Starmer and Labour can change the country and prevent this happening again but they need the keys to Downing Street first. They can then break the system and rebuild.

 

[Eric the meek]

The greatest and most insidious danger to the multicultural harmony in this country, doesn't come from Farage, the Daily Mail or Piers Morgan.

It comes from the most unlikely sources within the current government.

 

[BadFish]

So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?

Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?

Can you advise?

No sorry, I've been on threads about asylum seekers for longer than I care to remember sharing information, links and everything else. I can't compete with the papers and I need to work today.

Your questions are good though and worth exploring.

 

[drew]

So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?

Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?

Can you advise?

Just to remind you, we're an island!!!

 

[worthingseagull123]

No sorry, I've been on threads about asylum seekers for longer than I care to remember sharing information, links and everything else. I can't compete with the papers and I need to work today.

Your questions are good though and worth exploring.

No worries.

Personally the problem and blame lies solely with the government. They’ve underfunded government departments for far too long as you wont fix any issue with reactionary nonsense like this.

The UK, needs to work with the EU to devise a united strategy and undertake a consistent framework.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Just to remind you, we're an island!!!

Yes we are an island. As are many other nations.

Do you know which island nations and non-island nations offer legal routes for people to claim outside their territory or issue visas to people to allow them to travel to their own territory to claim asylum?

 

[Jim in the West]

So why do we have a higher grant rate than the rest of Europe?

Which other countries have safe routes to allow people to lodge asylum claims from outside their territories or issue visas to allow them to travel to their territory to lodge an asylum claim?

Can you advise?

Good questions!

- According to the info on the Govt website, the reason for the relatively high grant rate in the UK is that we have a greater proportion of asylum-seekers from the most dangerous countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea). So we're not necessarily being more generous (or humane), it's just we get fewer "undeserving" cases.

- One of the key differences between the UK and almost all other countries in Europe is that you need to cross the sea to get here. So other countries automatically have safer routes (even for Greece, where many arrivals come by boat, there is a land border with Turkey that can be crossed - albeit with difficulty).

 

[BadFish]

No worries.

Personally the problem and blame lies solely with the government. They’ve underfunded government departments for far too long as you wont fix any issue with reactionary nonsense like this.

The UK, needs to work with the EU to devise a united strategy and undertake a consistent framework.

There is a unified strategy. The UN have created it.

The UK government just do not follow it.



Interesting video here that talks about the whole 'illegal' narrative.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No worries.

Personally the problem and blame lies solely with the government. They’ve underfunded government departments for far too long as you wont fix any issue with reactionary nonsense like this.

The UK, needs to work with the EU to devise a united strategy and undertake a consistent framework.

We had an agreement called the Dublin agreement but it was dumped during the Withdrawal agreement which is why the boats have increased dramatically since 2018.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Good questions!

- According to the info on the Govt website, the reason for the relatively high grant rate in the UK is that we have a greater proportion of asylum-seekers from the most dangerous countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea). So we're not necessarily being more generous (or humane), it's just we get fewer "undeserving" cases.

- One of the key differences between the UK and almost all other countries in Europe is that you need to cross the sea to get here. So other countries automatically have safer routes (even for Greece, where many arrivals come by boat, there is a land border with Turkey that can be crossed - albeit with difficulty).

It would be interesting to see whether we are getting a higher proportion of Afghans, Sudanese, Iran etc compared to the EU. I wouldn’t be surprised given the links we’ve had with these nations.

I am surprised we get so many Albanians. Albanians do not need visas to visit Schengen nations as visitors, but with ID cards being the norm for EU nations, we wont see much illegal working.

If we started offering a temporary worker scheme for Albanians, that would see the end of Albanians entering clandesinely and it would allow job vacancies to be filled.

 

[BadFish]

Yes we are an island. As are many other nations.

Do you know which island nations and non-island nations offer legal routes for people to claim outside their territory or issue visas to people to allow them to travel to their own territory to claim asylum?

I think the short answer is that most don't need to. This is because they accept the legality of people turning up to claim asylum.

The slightly longer answer is that there are mechanisms through refugee camps throughout the world that give people access to different countries around the world. I'm not totally across this so I am prepared to be corrected but I have assumed that these are the mechanisms that the government have closed.

 

[Randy McNob]

Just to remind you, we're an island!!!

why should being an island have anything to do with our international obligations to treaties we have signed up to? Especially since we are far more responsble for the displacement of those people than any other European country

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Only days before?

Im sure there will be many others with the same view as you on both sides of politics- voting for their party regardless of what is in the manifesto

I'd certainly vote against the tories because of what is in their manifesto (well, in their current policies - their manifesto is likely to be thin and gimmicky). I have had too many years of their rubbish governments to not even entertain giving them another go. Regardless of my general preference for Labour (who look very decent right now (post Jezza).

So if Labour don't provide you with sufficient detail before the election you'll do what? Vote for more of the present shit show? Or do a protest vote and back the liberals?

 

[Berty23]

the real mind bender for some is that the refugees coming on boats are not “taking an illegal route” they can get here however they want. It is not illegal to do so. The illegal bit is the people charging them to do it but the actual refugees are not illegal immigrants because refugees can enter how they like.

 

[The Fits]

Walker is right in the above video. Tories are getting away, continually, with saying the refugees are coming here illegally. That they are criminals. That's simply not the case. Everybody has a right to seek asylum, that isn't a crime. It seems mad that it has to be said and them getting away with this kind of language, unchallenged, is very, very dangerous.
Edit: apologies @Berty23 for basically repeating your point a few minutes later

 

[jcdenton08]

It is already illegal for immigrants to enter the UK without a visa or special permission. Arriving on a small boat is neither of these things.

There needs to be a proper processing centre and the government needs to bring the acceptance rate down and in line with the rest of Europe, working on a fair but robust framework of what Britain needs balanced against ethical desire to “take our fair share”.

The UK needs working migrants, who are proficient in the language with clean criminal records and who will contribute to - rather than burden - the nation.

 

[drew]

why should being an island have anything to do with our international obligations to treaties we have signed up to? Especially since we are far more responsble for the displacement of those people than any other European country

Don't disagree with you at all. I was replying to worthingseagull's comment about safe routes. Damn sight easier to cross a land border than a water one. This government have pretty much eliminated all safe routes hence the boats.

 

[drew]

It is already illegal for immigrants to enter the UK without a visa or special permission. Arriving on a small boat is neither of these things.

There needs to be a proper processing centre and the government needs to bring the acceptance rate down and in line with the rest of Europe, working on a fair but robust framework of what Britain needs balanced against ethical desire to “take our fair share”.

The UK needs working migrants, who are proficient in the language with clean criminal records and who will contribute to - rather than burden - the nation.

Out of interest, is there any evidence that migrants, once processed and accepted, are a burden to the nation? I agree with you in that we need to process them quicker but then once again that's a resource decision being made by this government.

 

[jcdenton08]

Out of interest, is there any evidence that migrants, once processed and accepted, are a burden to the nation? I agree with you in that we need to process them quicker but then once again that's a resource decision being made by this government.

It depends on the source when it comes to numbers as naturally it’s impossible to know, since there are huge numbers of undocumented people in the UK. Without documents and census it’s largely guesstimates from everyone right down to the government.

It’s absolutely the government’s fault. Lack of resources and funding, gross negligence and now a very likely illegal policy being forced through to seem tough, when they’ve played a huge part in causing this mess.

That said, I don’t think it’s even up for debate that illegal immigrants come with a cost. Direct costs (processing/asylum hotels/feeding and watering/security and policing/transportation/healthcare) as well as indirect costs like loss of tax revenue from being undeclared workers, use of tax and NI-paid facilities/services/benefits which haven’t been paid for.

These are rightly absorbed by the tax payer for genuine asylum seekers, in order to allow them to transition to British life, learn the language, gain employment and start giving back in taxes what has been spent on them.

The quantity and speed of this process along with government incompetence has made this an issue which does need addressing though, even if it gets people a little squeamish on both sides of the political divide.