The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[pingpong]

16 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If accurate then that's absolutely shocking and highlights one of the main problems we face. 

Not accurate, simple to check.  Average childcare is 12k, which leaves 67k before rent.  You can rent a nice (luxury) house in the country for 3k a month, and still have 31k in change, and I don't think those on benefits are living in 3k a month houses...

[Sir Ralph]

35 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Not accurate, simple to check.  Average childcare is 12k, which leaves 67k before rent.  You can rent a nice (luxury) house in the country for 3k a month, and still have 31k in change, and I don't think those on benefits are living in 3k a month houses...

This is based on London prices with two kids (again this is context of the point being made). Good luck getting childcare for £12k a year - the figures are accurate. You would be looking at £4k- £5k a month minimum for childcare and rent. That doesn’t include additional costs incurred from working, such as travel costs. Even if the figures were slightly out (which I don’t think they are) there is a bigger point being made. The welfare system doesn’t encourage people to work in some instances - not something anyone should be supporting.

Also, even accepting your calculations, if they had £31k spare in “change” or I would call it other living costs having worked. Thats the same as the £30k that a couple of benefits would have having not worked. So you confirmed the point. In this scenario it pays not to work. 
 

 

Edited Friday at 08:42 by Sir Ralph

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is based on London prices with two kids (again this is context of the point being made). Good luck getting childcare for £12k a year - the figures are accurate. You would be looking at £4k- £5k a month minimum for childcare and rent. That doesn’t include additional costs incurred from working, such as travel costs. Even if the figures were slightly out (which I don’t think they are) there is a bigger point being made. The welfare system doesn’t encourage people to work in some instances - not something anyone should be supporting.

Also, even accepting your calculations, if they had £31k spare in “change” or I would call it other living costs having worked. Thats the same as the £30k that a couple of benefits would have having not worked. So you confirmed the point. In this scenario it pays not to work. 
 

 

But only if you are content with council housing, as opposed to a luxury property in the commuter belt. If you are, then you could rent at 800pcm and have way more money by working.

If it was accurate, how do couples on average salaries justify working? (60-80k household incomes). Why are employment figures so high if the state is so generous.  My household income is less than 100k - are you seriously saying we could retire now? The reason I won't is because I like where I live, and wouldn't I have to go live in a shithole if I went down the benefits route?

If you are right, then maybe we should open up another forum and help each other navigate how to get a 100k lifestyle without working, because I'd probably go for that, I could spend my days making art and going to the gym rather than bending spreadsheets all day.

Edited Friday at 10:14 by pingpong

[Sir Ralph]

41 minutes ago, pingpong said:

But only if you are content with council housing, as opposed to a luxury property in the commuter belt. If you are, then you could rent at 800pcm and have way more money by working.

If it was accurate, how do couples on average salaries justify working? (60-80k household incomes). Why are employment figures so high if the state is so generous.  My household income is less than 100k - are you seriously saying we could retire now? The reason I won't is because I like where I live, and wouldn't I have to go live in a shithole if I went down the benefits route?

If you are right, then maybe we should open up another forum and help each other navigate how to get a 100k lifestyle without working, because I'd probably go for that, I could spend my days making art and going to the gym rather than bending spreadsheets all day.

Respectfully I think your missing the key point. The example in front of us that you commented on relates to London.

We aren’t talking about the locations you are referring to. You need to consider the London location in the context of the example that was disputed.
 

The cost of any housing in London for a four person family is nowhere near £800 pcm, even in rubbish areas. This is why the example provided does add up.

There is a massive shortage of housing which has elevated prices for everyone, including Councils. In many cases local authorities pay more than the private rented sector for housing. If Councils could rent housing in London at 800pcm for a 4 person family they wouldn’t all be in the financial position they are in because of their extortionate housing bills. A number have, or are due to, face bankruptcy with this being a factor.

 

Edited Friday at 10:55 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Respectfully I think your missing the key point. The example in front of us that you commented on relates to London.

We aren’t talking about the locations you are referring to. You need to consider the London location in the context of the example that was disputed.
 

The cost of any housing in London for a four person family is nowhere near £800 pcm, even in rubbish areas. This is why the example provided does add up.

There is a massive shortage of housing which has elevated prices for everyone, including Councils. In many cases local authorities pay more than the private rented sector for housing. If Councils could rent housing in London at 800pcm for a 4 person family they wouldn’t all be in the financial position they are in because of their extortionate housing bills. A number have, or are due to, face bankruptcy with this being a factor.

 

Ex council houses in Southampton rent for £1600pcm, so about £20k a year. Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

So over £50k a year for rent of an ex council house and to have someone else look after young kids. Obviously, the childcare costs drop massively in term time for school age kids as only wrap around care is needed. 

Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

[Sir Ralph]

36 minutes ago, egg said:

Ex council houses in Southampton rent for £1600pcm, so about £20k a year. Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

So over £50k a year for rent of an ex council house and to have someone else look after young kids. Obviously, the childcare costs drop massively in term time for school age kids as only wrap around care is needed. 

Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

The example that was disputed was based in London. It was challenged and I have corrected it. Southampton maybe a different case, as may other locations, but it depends on the context. The point is that in some scenarios (not all) it pays not to work. That should never be the case - unless you disagree?

We don’t live in the 1980s anymore. The way in which people live is changing, hence why you have new rental products on the market.

What you will actually find is private landlords often help to provide housing to people that can’t afford to put down a deposit and buy as they provide rented accommodation that would otherwise be in private ownership. With the new requirements for landlords that the government has brought in, you will find that some landlords are now selling their rented properties to private home owners, as the government is forcing them out of the market. This means those renting (often HMOs) will or have been moved out of those properties, there are less rental properties, and therefore prices for renters will go up (hence the jump in rental costs). It’s another example of this Government meddling where they don’t understand the market consequences of what they are doing. They will in fact harm the people they intend to help.

The blame isn’t on landlords, in my opinion, but numerous governments over many years for not creating an environment for the delivery of sufficient housing. That should be your beef

Edited Friday at 12:06 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The example that was disputed was based in London. It was challenged and I have corrected it. Southampton maybe a different case, as may other locations, but it depends on the context. 

We don’t live in the 1980s anymore. The way in which people live is changing, hence why you have new products such as co living on the market.

What you will actually find is private landlords often help to provide housing to people that can’t afford to put down a deposit and buy as they provide rented accommodation that would otherwise be in private ownership. With the new requirements for landlords that the government has brought in, you will find that some landlords are now selling their rented properties to private home owners, as the government is forcing them out of the market. This means those renting (often HMOs) will or have been moved out of those properties, there are less rental properties, and therefore prices for renters will go up (hence the jump in rental costs). It’s another example of this Government meddling where they don’t understand the market consequences of what they are doing. They will in fact harm the people they intend to help.

The blame isn’t on landlords, in my opinion, but numerous governments over many years for not creating an environment for the delivery of sufficient housing. That should be your beef

I'm not getting into a wider discussion, just giving some actual facts about local house rental and childcare costs. Too many people float around made up numbers, and forget that child care costs don't apply to all kids, all day, every week. 

I'm not sure how you've gleaned that I feel that landlords are the issue.... there's a reason I'm in tune with the rental market. The need to rent, the rise in property prices thus rent, and the lack of housing stock, is entirely down to government policy. 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not getting into a wider discussion, just giving some actual facts about local house rental and childcare costs. Too many people float around made up numbers, and forget that child care costs don't apply to all kids, all day, every week. 

I'm not sure how you've gleaned that I feel that landlords are the issue.... there's a reason I'm in tune with the rental market. The need to rent, the rise in property prices thus rent, and the lack of housing stock, is entirely down to government policy. 

Thats fine - I wasn’t getting into a wider discussion. In fact I was trying to focus on the specific example which was being deviated from.

Glad we agree successive governments are the issue. I made my comment on landlords because you said the below but if you agree they aren’t the issue then we agree on that also. Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

Edited Friday at 11:58 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats fine - I wasn’t getting into a wider discussion. In fact I was trying to focus on the specific example which was being deviated from.

Glad we agree successive governments are the issue. I made my comment on landlords because you said the below but if you agree they aren’t the issue then we agree on that also. Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

Yep, governments have made a right mess of things, although Thatchers sell off was the catalyst, and subsequent stamp duty giveaways etc haven't helped. 

The rental market is dominated by private landlords but that shouldn't be the case. So although I don't have an issue with landlords, I think it unfortunate that we're in that situation. 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep, governments have made a right mess of things, although Thatchers sell off was the catalyst, and subsequent stamp duty giveaways etc haven't helped. 

The rental market is dominated by private landlords but that shouldn't be the case. So although I don't have an issue with landlords, I think it unfortunate that we're in that situation. 

Like you said we could discuss these matters more widely. I suspect we will have some areas of agreement and disagreement but maybe another day. Have a good afternoon.

[badgerx16]

This from the Torygraph last year;

"Generous welfare payments allow some London households to cash in, analysis suggests

A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70,000 a year, analysis suggests.

Increasingly generous welfare payments mean non-working families are able to claim tens of thousands of pounds of Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit, and benefit from discounted social housing, while many working families must pay full-rate rent and income tax.

Analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and The Telegraph shows that the combined value of these benefits and discounted rent in some locations can add up to more than £50,000 – more than a sole earner on £70,000 would get after income tax and National Insurance.

While this will apply in only a few places, it illustrates the size of the benefits packet on offer.

"

( Highlighting by me )

I think using London as an example in any such discussion distorts the argument.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/families-benefits-better-off-earning-70k-london/

[Sir Ralph]

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

This from the Torygraph last year;

"Generous welfare payments allow some London households to cash in, analysis suggests

A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70,000 a year, analysis suggests.

Increasingly generous welfare payments mean non-working families are able to claim tens of thousands of pounds of Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit, and benefit from discounted social housing, while many working families must pay full-rate rent and income tax.

Analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and The Telegraph shows that the combined value of these benefits and discounted rent in some locations can add up to more than £50,000 – more than a sole earner on £70,000 would get after income tax and National Insurance.

While this will apply in only a few places, it illustrates the size of the benefits packet on offer.

"

( Highlighting by me )

I think using London as an example in any such discussion distorts the argument.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/families-benefits-better-off-earning-70k-london/

It will depend on the location and the cost of living in that location. Some locations (more likely down south, including 10 million in Greater London) it would apply and others, maybe up north it wouldn’t. I said as much that this was the case.

Two points:

1. I responded to a post which said the example provided (based on London) before was incorrect. I corrected it and you have helpfully confirmed that I was indeed correct. 

2. This should never be the case. Somebody working should never be worse off or have the same income as somebody in the same situation (eg same location, family size, etc) not working. I’ve asked this question a couple of times but do you agree with that statement? If so the welfare system should be changed so that this doesn’t occur. Would you agree as I think this is the point?

Edited Friday at 13:08 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It will depend on the location and the cost of living in that location. Some locations (more likely down south) it would apply and others, maybe up north it wouldn’t. I said as much that this was the case.

Two points:

1. I responded to a post which said the example provided before was incorrect. I corrected it and you have helpfully confirmed that I was indeed correct. 

2. This should never be the case. Somebody working should never be worse off or have the same income as somebody in the same situation (eg same location, family size, etc) not working. I’ve asked this question a couple of times but do you agree with that statement? If so the welfare system should be changed so that this doesn’t occur. Would you agree as I think this is the point?

Able bodied and capable people should wherever possible be better off in work rather than out of it. This can never be an absolute as geographical and economic factors impact on such things as wage levels and housing costs, but in the main benefits should be a means to lift people up to a minimum level of income, rather than facilitating a non-productive "alternative" lifestyle.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Able bodied and capable people should wherever possible be better off in work rather than out of it. This can never be an absolute as geographical and economic factors impact on such things as wage levels and housing costs, but in the main benefits should be a means to lift people up to a minimum level of income, rather than facilitating a non-productive "alternative" lifestyle.

Fair enough. The only difference is that in my opinion this should be a more absolute position. However that’s a more complex discussion I suspect. Have a good afternoon.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

This from the Torygraph last year;

"Generous welfare payments allow some London households to cash in, analysis suggests

A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70,000 a year, analysis suggests.

Increasingly generous welfare payments mean non-working families are able to claim tens of thousands of pounds of Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit, and benefit from discounted social housing, while many working families must pay full-rate rent and income tax.

Analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and The Telegraph shows that the combined value of these benefits and discounted rent in some locations can add up to more than £50,000 – more than a sole earner on £70,000 would get after income tax and National Insurance.

While this will apply in only a few places, it illustrates the size of the benefits packet on offer.

"

( Highlighting by me )

I think using London as an example in any such discussion distorts the argument.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/families-benefits-better-off-earning-70k-london/

If I were them, I'd move to Dubai to save on IHT.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Ex council houses in Southampton rent for £1600pcm, so about £20k a year. Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

So over £50k a year for rent of an ex council house and to have someone else look after young kids. Obviously, the childcare costs drop massively in term time for school age kids as only wrap around care is needed. 

Rental costs are the killer, but that's what happens when you sell off your social housing and encourage every man and has dog to buy a buy to let or two. 

It's more than that for preschool children. 

[Whitey Grandad]

20 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes France’s 0.9% forms part of the overall 2% within the eurozone. Its specific figure was just highlighted 

Why is it different?

[egg]

22 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why is it different?

The overall is an average I think. Here's the country specific list. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/2-20082025-ap#:~:text=The lowest annual rates were,six and rose in thirteen.

 

[RedArmy]

7 hours ago, egg said:

Childcare locally is about £70 per child per day, so about £33,000 per year based on a 5 day week with 47 weeks in work. 

 

Lucky to find anything under £80 for a full day round here. Also be lucky to find anywhere that doesn’t still charge you when you take the kids on holiday or keep them at home while you’re off. You pay 51 weeks of the year, like it or lump it. 

30 free hours starts for all next month but that’s a big con when you actually work it all out.
It’s only term time for a start (38 weeks) but you don’t actually save much because of all of the other things you have to start paying for that were normally included. 
 

Full day session 8am-6pm £83

Vs 

4 extra hours  £45 

Consumables charge per day £20 

Meals £7.50. 

So anyone thinking that they’re currently paying for 50 hours per week for their kids and they’ll be saving over half because they’re getting 30 free hours they actually get to save £10 per day, well for 38 weeks anyway. 
What a con. 

 

[AlexLaw76]

We could follow this, yes?

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/germany-s-chancellor-to-strip-failed-asylum-seekers-of-access-to-lawyers-in-new-migrant-crackdown/ar-AA1L5ONr

[egg]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We could follow this, yes?

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/germany-s-chancellor-to-strip-failed-asylum-seekers-of-access-to-lawyers-in-new-migrant-crackdown/ar-AA1L5ONr

No. 

We can't have a society where people don't have the right to use the law, and access lawyers to do so. 

If the law or the process is the issue then address that, not people's right to access it. 

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, egg said:

No. 

We can't have a society where people don't have the right to use the law, and access lawyers to do so. 

If the law or the process is the issue then address that, not people's right to access it. 

Not really 'society' if it is specifically for failed asylum seeker gaming the system

[Farmer Saint]

5 hours ago, egg said:

No. 

We can't have a society where people don't have the right to use the law, and access lawyers to do so. 

If the law or the process is the issue then address that, not people's right to access it. 

Agreed.

Process improvement needed, not legal loopholes.

Access only allowed from applying from outside the UK with a legally/morally justified cap. Any that come over on boats are returned from whence they came. All family applicants must be on one single application. If granted permission, then they can travel.

Edited 19 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Agreed.

Process improvement needed, not legal loopholes.

Access only allowed from applying from outside the UK with a legally/morally justified cap. Any that come over on boats are returned from whence they came. All family applicants must be on one single application. If granted permission, then they can travel.

Thing is, at the moment you can only apply once in the UK.

[Farmer Saint]

12 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Thing is, at the moment you can only apply once in the UK.

I know, hence the change in process.

[Lord Duckhunter]

17 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Any that come over on boats are returned from whence they came.

How do you send people back to Afghanistan or Syria? 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How do you send people back to Afghanistan or Syria? 

I thought he meant France. Equally impossible. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

I thought he meant France. Equally impossible. 

Exactly. 
 

There’s only 1 way to stop them and its unpalatable to a Human Rites lawyer like Sir Kier. You bang them up in some god forsaken detention centre in the middle of nowhere and keep them there for years. France or any other EU country will seem a lot more attractive than that. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly. 
 

There’s only 1 way to stop them and its unpalatable to a Human Rites lawyer like Sir Kier. You bang them up in some god forsaken detention centre in the middle of nowhere and keep them there for years. France or any other EU country will seem a lot more attractive than that. 

I think labour will shift to less pleasant accommodation sooner rather than later. Putting aside that the Tories started the hotel thing, public feeling is strong, and Labour will have to do something to avoid rolling out the red carpet to Reform. 

I'd also like to see the detail on the Adjudicators rather than Judges idea for asylum applications. The Tribunal system is far too clunky. Although anything that speeds it up is good, the decisions need to be legally sound otherwise we'll get loads of people failing at Adjudication stage getting stuck in even lengthier appeals. 

[Farmer Saint]

35 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How do you send people back to Afghanistan or Syria? 

But they have legal routes - the main issue I thought (and this is what we keep being told by Reform and the ilk) is that 90% coming over on boats are economic migrants...

[Farmer Saint]

30 minutes ago, egg said:

I thought he meant France. Equally impossible. 

No, I mean to origin. We're always told that the vast majority on boats are economic migrants in which they can be returned.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, I mean to origin. We're always told that the vast majority on boats are economic migrants in which they can be returned.

Then Duck's question stands. The concept can't become reality. I don't think even Farage thinks it possible. 

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Then Duck's question stands. The concept can't become reality. I don't think even Farage thinks it possible. 

But Afghans and Syrians will be able to apply from abroad anyway, as they have real asylum claims, hence they won't be on the boats.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I think labour will shift to less pleasant accommodation sooner rather than later. Putting aside that the Tories started the hotel thing, public feeling is strong, and Labour will have to do something to avoid rolling out the red carpet to Reform. 

I'd also like to see the detail on the Adjudicators rather than Judges idea for asylum applications. The Tribunal system is far too clunky. Although anything that speeds it up is good, the decisions need to be legally sound otherwise we'll get loads of people failing at Adjudication stage getting stuck in even lengthier appeals. 

You’ve still got the fundamental issue that most will be granted asylum. When you can’t prove where someone is from, how can you return them anywhere.  It’s all well and good saying that anyone arriving illegally will not get the right to remain, but what does that look like. Only a mug is going to say “I’m from Morocco ”, or some other country we can return them to. 
 

The other thing is the public are beyond a technocratic approach to sorting this. They just want the boats to stop. Processing people quicker or more fairly won’t cut it. Unless they see a reduction in the numbers crossing Labour are fucked. 

[Farmer Saint]

Essentially you would have limits by country in the EU and Britain, and if they are exceeded those that do have asylum claims will be offered other safe countries that haven't had their limits breached to be returned to have their asylum claims heard.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But Afghans and Syrians will be able to apply from abroad anyway, as they have real asylum claims, hence they won't be on the boats.

Dear God….

The people on the boats chuck their ID away and then claim they’re from Syria or Afghanistan. Even if the officials say “well you should have applied via official channels’, what happens to them then. Where are they deported to? Do we guess where they’re from and send them there? 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve still got the fundamental issue that most will be granted asylum. When you can’t prove where someone is from, how can you return them anywhere.  It’s all well and good saying that anyone arriving illegally will not get the right to remain, but what does that look like. Only a mug is going to say “I’m from Morocco ”, or some other country we can return them to. 
 

The other thing is the public are beyond a technocratic approach to sorting this. They just want the boats to stop. Processing people quicker or more fairly won’t cut it. Unless they see a reduction in the numbers crossing Labour are fucked. 

You're never going to cut them full stop, it just won't happen. It is a global issue of haves and have nots, and unless we sort out global equality it will always happen. All you can do is have a more joined up approach to dealing with it, and dealing with it as a block.

If people knew that by travelling in boats they will not have their asylum claims heard, then they wouldn't travel. When the Tories cut the ability to apply from abroad it's what they wanted, to increase hatred within the country of them pesky foreigners.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear God….

The people on the boats chuck their ID away and then claim they’re from Syria or Afghanistan. Even if the officials say “well you should have applied via official channels’, what happens to them then. Where are they deported to? Do we guess where they’re from and send them there? 

They get returned to a European country that has the space to take and process their claims. If we have space remaining we do it.

We're looking to reduce it, you're never going to solve it. 80/20 rule.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve still got the fundamental issue that most will be granted asylum. When you can’t prove where someone is from, how can you return them anywhere.  It’s all well and good saying that anyone arriving illegally will not get the right to remain, but what does that look like. Only a mug is going to say “I’m from Morocco ”, or some other country we can return them to. 
 

The other thing is the public are beyond a technocratic approach to sorting this. They just want the boats to stop. Processing people quicker or more fairly won’t cut it. Unless they see a reduction in the numbers crossing Labour are fucked. 

But the boats are a reality, and there's been more this year primarily because of the weather - nothing else has changed. 

Where we agree is that we need to become a less attractive proposition for illegal economic migrants, but it can't just be a 'house people in a less attractive way and they won't come' type approach, especially if you concede that most will be granted asylum anyway. We need to deal with applications quickly, properly, and look carefully at the criteria to succeed - we need to sort the needy from the greedy. 

 

[AlexLaw76]

Maybe just stop placing these people in nice hotels, given free money, allowed to work illegal jobs and stop them jumping the NHS/public services queue. 

How that happens, no idea, but the 'adults in the room' should have this wrapped up soon, right?

If Labour do not make a significant dent into this, they will lose the next election. 

Smashing the gangs? yeah, not really working is it

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Maybe just stop placing these people in nice hotels, given free money, allowed to work illegal jobs and stop them jumping the NHS/public services queue. 

How that happens, no idea, but the 'adults in the room' should have this wrapped up soon, right?

If Labour do not make a significant dent into this, they will lose the next election. 

Smashing the gangs? yeah, not really working is it

So if labour don't sort a tory mess, we'll get torie's on steroids. 

The "how this happens" is kind of the important bit. 

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

So if labour don't sort a tory mess, we'll get torie's on steroids. 

The "how this happens" is kind of the important bit. 

It is their mess now.

If they do not make a significant dent into this, they will lose the election.

The how? Labour will have no choice but to drift further and further towards a Tory/Reform view in some areas - won't be long before we see another Rwanda type plan and/or departing from ECHR floated in the media.

Edited 1 hour ago by AlexLaw76

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

we need to sort the needy from the greedy.

What do you do with “the greedy”? 
 

Every single one of them is leaving a safe country, they just prefer to live in The UK than The EU. 
 

If you locked every single one up 5 years for entering the country illegally, they’d soon stop. That’s how it’s going to eventually play out. It’s not going to be solved by the EU & UK sitting around singing “I’d like to teach the world to sing” (good luck with getting Hungary & Poland to take their share). They’ll be housed in shit holes, sent to a third party country like Rwanda, or camps will be built in some remote British territory somewhere. We’ll leave the ECHR & other conventions and make it so horrible they’ll stay in Europe (who will eventually do similar). 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What do you do with “the greedy”? 
 

Every single one of them is leaving a safe country, they just prefer to live in The UK than The EU. 
 

If you locked every single one up 5 years for entering the country illegally, they’d soon stop. That’s how it’s going to eventually play out. It’s not going to be solved by the EU & UK sitting around singing “I’d like to teach the world to sing” (good luck with getting Hungary & Poland to take their share). They’ll be housed in shit holes, sent to a third party country like Rwanda, or camps will be built in some remote British territory somewhere. We’ll leave the ECHR & other conventions and make it so horrible they’ll stay in Europe (who will eventually do similar). 

But you can't do that with genuine asylum seekers, hence you have to try and deal with it in partnership. How do you lock them up, we already have too many prisoners? You're not reducing costs that way.

As said, you're never going to solve it without economic equality, so you need proper partnerships. If each country in the EU took 0.2% of their population each year in asylum claims, you're creating 900k asylum claims. If they come across in a boat they get sent back to the country of exit. It needs proper joined up agreements with other European countries, but if the asylum claimants know they cannot get into the UK other than by official means then they have no choice. They have some money (as they pay to get over on boats), so they have the means and ability to claim asylum from overseas.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What do you do with “the greedy”? 
 

Every single one of them is leaving a safe country, they just prefer to live in The UK than The EU. 
 

If you locked every single one up 5 years for entering the country illegally, they’d soon stop. That’s how it’s going to eventually play out. It’s not going to be solved by the EU & UK sitting around singing “I’d like to teach the world to sing” (good luck with getting Hungary & Poland to take their share). They’ll be housed in shit holes, sent to a third party country like Rwanda, or camps will be built in some remote British territory somewhere. We’ll leave the ECHR & other conventions and make it so horrible they’ll stay in Europe (who will eventually do similar). 

I'm not sure that'll happen, especially leaving the ECHR. The sad thing is, this is all about a small proportion of our migrants, and the wider discussion about the migration we need is lost. 

The irony for labour is that they've reduced legal migration by more people than the illegal immigrants. 

Re your first point, we're back to the starting issue today namely that we can't easily deport those who shouldn't be here. That takes us full circle to making us a less attractive proposition. 

[Farmer Saint]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Maybe just stop placing these people in nice hotels, given free money, allowed to work illegal jobs and stop them jumping the NHS/public services queue. 

How that happens, no idea, but the 'adults in the room' should have this wrapped up soon, right?

If Labour do not make a significant dent into this, they will lose the next election. 

Smashing the gangs? yeah, not really working is it

Nice hotels - behave. This is where some were housed in Eastbourne until last year.

 

And given money - £9.95 per week if they are fed. £49 if not. 

[Sir Ralph]

Does anyone know the total proportion of population growth from illegal asylum seekers in 2024 - I calculated 11% - 1 in 10?

[Lord Duckhunter]

45 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

so you need proper partnerships. If each country in the EU took 0.2% of their population each year in asylum claims 

😂😂 Good luck with that… “vote for me & we”ll take people who want to live in the UK”. I think you’re also forgetting freedom of movement. 

One sure way to boost the right across Europe is to force them to take our overspill. 
 

 

[badgerx16]

In the 12 months to June 2025, 49 thousand people crossed the channel in small boats, whilet in total there were nearly 1 million immigrants to the UK.