The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[pingpong]

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, pingpong said:

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

The 50k illegal asylum seekers are those arriving on small boats. There isn’t dispute about those figures.
 

The Tories mismanaged and many issues emanate from them but politically Labour will need to do something radical otherwise they will be tarred with the same brush. You can’t judge the current government on its performance for a couple of years. It’s one thing politicians saying they will deal with it but statistics have contradicted this and many people (for good reason) don’t trust politicians generally. The Conservatives now attacking the current government is hypocritical and I believe most rationale people can see that. This is a complex issue and I hope the current government to improve the system but the legal framework makes it difficult. Without more radical change it will continue to be a political issue which is why Reform has a lot of traction with the electorate.

My opinion of the reasons it’s become more prominent is the ongoing cumulative impact over the years, people getting annoyed about the ongoing expenditure in a climate where we are asking people to be taxed more (but government spending is being exhausted elsewhere), and the re-election of Trump. The latter has meant that the dialogue around these matters is no longer seen as taboo and people feel more freely to voice their views.

Edited August 25 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, pingpong said:

How are you defining "illegal" asylum seekers though?

One thing that seems clear is that the government has changed strategy very quickly since coming in. The Tories focus was on finding accomodation to manage the numbers (hotels, offshore boats etc), and the bizarre non deterrent of Rwanda, whereas labour have come in and are trying to speed up processing and deportation rates, with some success so far, although all they are dealing with so far is the easy fixes, it will get more challenging once those are out of the way. I guess that's reflected in the number of hotels being used decreasing by 200 or so since labour came in.  

But it's not an easy challenge, for whoever is in power, I don't quite get why it is becoming such a hot topic just as we finally start to tackle it after 14yrs of failing to do so.

They aren't illegal until they have been denied asylum I believe. Until then they are asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived:

"There is no such thing as an "illegal" or "bogus" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim."

[Weston Super Saint]

25 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

They aren't illegal until they have been denied asylum I believe. Until then they are asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived:

"There is no such thing as an "illegal" or "bogus" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim."

The only question that remains is are they asylum seekers from the off or are they asylum seekers once they've been caught entering the country illegally?

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The only question that remains is are they asylum seekers from the off or are they asylum seekers once they've been caught entering the country illegally?

I was referring to people coming from small boats (which is the issue being discussed) of which there are 50k rather than getting hung up on the definition within any legal technicality. Most people refer to people on small boats as illegal. 

Edited August 25 by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I was referring to people coming from small boats (which is the issue being discussed) of which there are 50k rather than getting hung up on the definition within any legal technicality. Most people refer to people on small boats as illegal. 

I think you've misunderstood my point.

I accept that those crossing the channel on small boats are illegal given that they are travelling without the correct documents / permission to do so.

The question I raise is whether they were 'asylum seekers' when they originally left their country of origin or whether they were illegal economic migrants who only became 'asylum seekers' when caught on arrival in the UK?  I suspect for the vast majority of those crossing the channel they are the latter who have been coached in what to say and to whom if / when they are caught.

Do we know how accurate the 50k figure is?  Presumably that is the number that have been 'caught' making the crossing / on arrival in the UK, but how many are succesful in their attempts to cross and are therefore not counted?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Do we know how accurate the 50k figure is?  Presumably that is the number that have been 'caught' making the crossing / on arrival in the UK, but how many are succesful in their attempts to cross and are therefore not counted?

I don’t actually think they’re trying to dodge the authorities & any are sneaking into the country secretly. They get waved off by the French and picked up by us mugs. There’s no need to sneak in. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t actually think they’re trying to dodge the authorities & any are sneaking into the country secretly. They get waved off by the French and picked up by us mugs. There’s no need to sneak in. 

Yep. Leave France, bob about a bit, let off a flare, get picked up by a British sea ferry. 

[Farmer Saint]

God Brexit fucked us in the ass with this shit. And it's just hilarious that it was those who voted Brexit have the biggest problem with it.

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I think you've misunderstood my point.

I accept that those crossing the channel on small boats are illegal given that they are travelling without the correct documents / permission to do so.

The question I raise is whether they were 'asylum seekers' when they originally left their country of origin or whether they were illegal economic migrants who only became 'asylum seekers' when caught on arrival in the UK?  I suspect for the vast majority of those crossing the channel they are the latter who have been coached in what to say and to whom if / when they are caught.

Do we know how accurate the 50k figure is?  Presumably that is the number that have been 'caught' making the crossing / on arrival in the UK, but how many are succesful in their attempts to cross and are therefore not counted?

Hi yes I agree the latter.

see article from bbc which confirms the crossing numbers in last year https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e1xkwd74wo.amp

If it’s 1 in 10 net migration as boat people to me that’s concerning, particularly as like you say the figure is probably higher. This is becoming part of the make up of the country. 

 

Edited August 25 by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t actually think they’re trying to dodge the authorities & any are sneaking into the country secretly. They get waved off by the French and picked up by us mugs. There’s no need to sneak in. 

Rupert found some

[Gloucester Saint]

Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General and one of the country’s finest legal minds on the reality of what Farage is proposing https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-immigration-deportation-reform-law-b2813624.html

So if he’s right, I suspect he is, even suspending EHCR membership isn’t a panacea. Better to update it and make it more specific in interpretation. 

[Farmer Saint]

After people getting their knickers in a twist a week ago when I said Monetary policy doesn't make anywhere near the difference that economists think it does, here is Gary a couple of days ago backing me up...

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General and one of the country’s finest legal minds

😂😂😂😂

No wonder we’re in the shite if that washed up soaking wet remoaner is one of the “finest legal minds”. You’d think he’d STFU after losing his seat despite the Lib Dem’s standing aside. Wasn’t his legal expertise in Health & Safety anyway, he looks the friggin type. 

[Gloucester Saint]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂😂😂😂

No wonder we’re in the shite if that washed up soaking wet remoaner is one of the “finest legal minds”. You’d think he’d STFU after losing his seat despite the Lib Dem’s standing aside. Wasn’t his legal expertise in Health & Safety anyway, he looks the friggin type. 

How’s Brexit worked out? Nigel very quiet on that these days 🤥 

Any suggestions in todays speech about how to regain the 6% of the economy a hard Brexit lost?

Edited August 26 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂😂😂😂

No wonder we’re in the shite if that washed up soaking wet remoaner is one of the “finest legal minds”. You’d think he’d STFU after losing his seat despite the Lib Dem’s standing aside. Wasn’t his legal expertise in Health & Safety anyway, he looks the friggin type. 

Still such a twat I see. Loves a play on words. Baffled when colleagues don’t guffaw when he greets them with a ‘Good Moaning’

[rallyboy]

7 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

How’s Brexit worked out? Nigel very quiet on that these days 🤥 

Any suggestions in todays speech about how to regain the 6% of the economy a hard Brexit lost?

Farage also glossed over the fact that every fucking boat could go straight back to France if some twat hadn't dragged us out of Europe. He's an absolute charlatan conman, lining his own pockets, working for Murdoch and hedge funds, manipulating markets for personal gain, looking for victims to follow him - and he's found a few! 

[badgerx16]

13 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Farage also glossed over the fact that every fucking boat could go straight back to France if some twat hadn't dragged us out of Europe. He's an absolute charlatan conman, lining his own pockets, working for Murdoch and hedge funds, manipulating markets for personal gain, looking for victims to follow him - and he's found a few! 

Do you think he has a secret stash of black shirts in his wardrobe ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

The impact of Brexit is likely to have been minimal – the decline in returns predates it, and, in practice, few people were returned under the Dublin Agreement (an average of 560 a year between 2008 and 2020).

 

 

[moonraker]

On 25/08/2025 at 13:16, Sir Ralph said:

The 50k illegal asylum seekers

By definition asylum seekers are not illegal.  They would only become illegal once their claim is denied and then if they scarpered, they are then illegal immigrants not asylum seekers.   While many think it is simple pedantry to bang on about definitions it is vital to be accurate, the process is a legal one bound by national and international law.  The British media and the right wing agitators have deliberately used incorrect terminology to whip up hatred and resentment.  Don't be conned by the con men and women.

Edited August 27 by moonraker

[moonraker]

26 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

The impact of Brexit is likely to have been minimal – the decline in returns predates it, and, in practice, few people were returned under the Dublin Agreement (an average of 560 a year between 2008 and 2020).

 

 

Absolute figures mean nothing, it is context, when we were in the EU the First Safe Country rule applied and there was zero or at least minimal small boat crossings.  So yes Brexit has a a massive impact. 

 

Edited August 27 by moonraker

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, moonraker said:

By definition asylum seekers are not illegal.  They would only become illegal once their claim is denied and then if they scarpered, they are then illegal immigrants not asylum seekers.   While many think it is simple pedantry to bang on about definitions it is vital to be accurate, the process is a legal one bound by national and international law.  The British media and the right wing agitators have deliberately used incorrect terminology to whip up hatred and resentment.  Don't be conned by the con men and women.

I don’t believe some are genuine asylum seekers anyway and are economic migrants as they are moving for economic benefit. I know you will say that is determined when their claim is heard but, regardless of legal definition, I think the use of this terminology would be generous to some to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers.

I think we all know what we are talking about - let’s say they arrived on small boats so we are clear.

The point I was actually highlighting is that I calculated 1 in 10 of people from net population growth arrived on small boats. I assume you think this number should be significantly reduced and people should be dissuaded from entering the UK via boats across the Channel?  

If so we agree on the key point regardless of any definition. I’m also not conned so don’t worry about me.

Edited August 27 by Sir Ralph

[moonraker]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I don’t believe some are genuine asylum seekers anyway and are economic migrants as they are moving for economic benefit. I know you will say that is determined when their claim is heard but, regardless of legal definition, I think the use of this terminology would be generous to some to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers.

I think we all know what we are talking about - let’s say they arrived on small boats so we are clear.

The point I was actually highlighting is that I calculated 1 in 10 of people from net population growth arrived on small boats. I assume you think this number should be significantly reduced and people should be dissuaded from entering the UK via boats across the Channel?  

If so we agree on the key point regardless of any definition. I’m also not conned so don’t worry about me.

I agree with most of what you say.  My concern over terminology is the way it has been weaponised to score political points primarily by right wing groups and overseas controlled media.  Based on your posts it obvious you are not conned, however by not challenging the language the con artists get an easier ride.  I cannot verify your 1 - 10 figure for population growth.  The process for assessing asylum claims has been, in general, in place for many years and proved to be effective.  The rate of returns for failed asylum seekers is accelerating and this is a good thing, the greatest deterrent is to process claimants quickly, and send them back quickly. 

Fargage's latest "policy' announcement is so full of BS, he plays to the mob and the main stream media and the current government are useless at calling him out.

Edited August 27 by moonraker

[Gloucester Saint]

Here’s an impact of Brexit and obsessing over immigration and numbers rather than targeting volumes of asylum seeking and prioritising who we welcome - Cancer Research UK having to spend £700k last year on visa costs which costs the equivalent of 17 Cancer PhD students, and confirmed today that’s risen to £900k.

 

[Farmer Saint]

They are all asylum seekers before the decision is granted. That is fact. If you are granted asylum you are no longer an asylum seeker, you are a refugee.

I just want to clear this up as there seems to be some confusion in the replies to others that I am seeing.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

They are all asylum seekers before the decision is granted. That is fact. If you are granted asylum you are no longer an asylum seeker, you are a refugee.

I just want to clear this up as there seems to be some confusion in the replies to others that I am seeing.

They are all illegal immigrants until they make their application for asylum.

Just wanted to clear this up as there seems to be lots of misplaced pedantry.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They are all illegal immigrants until they make their application for asylum.

Just wanted to clear this up as there seems to be lots of misplaced pedantry.

They are 'illegal' because there are no actual legal routes for them. In order to make an asylum claim they have to get to the UK. 

[Sir Ralph]

 

2 hours ago, moonraker said:

I agree with most of what you say.  My concern over terminology is the way it has been weaponised to score political points primarily by right wing groups and overseas controlled media.  Based on your posts it obvious you are not conned, however by not challenging the language the con artists get an easier ride.  I cannot verify your 1 - 10 figure for population growth.  The process for assessing asylum claims has been, in general, in place for many years and proved to be effective.  The rate of returns for failed asylum seekers is accelerating and this is a good thing, the greatest deterrent is to process claimants quickly, and send them back quickly. 

Fargage's latest "policy' announcement is so full of BS, he plays to the mob and the main stream media and the current government are useless at calling him out.

Appreciate the sensible response. There could be a degree of the use of language to make political points but I think that is a relatively minor consideration in relation to this issue as a whole. I think we may disagree on this point. In terms of the 1 in 10, I appreciate that this wont be 100% accurate, but was there anything in the assessment I put forward which suggests the calculation is wrong - I think that was the point? Happy to be wrong but this was a genuine assessment at trying to understand the net increase relative to those off boats.

Edited August 27 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They are all illegal immigrants until they make their application for asylum.

Just wanted to clear this up as there seems to be lots of misplaced pedantry.

Its missing the key point in the discussion - the legally or technical correct definition doesn't make any material difference to the issue or how you solve it, in my opinion.

[Farmer Saint]

Fucking hell, my two favourite posters are at it, must be a lot of crap being spouted here...

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

They are 'illegal' because there are no actual legal routes for them. In order to make an asylum claim they have to get to the UK. 

There are legal ways to get to the UK - especially if you're not actually fleeing a warzone, persecution or certain death. Could just fly in on a holiday visa, head to the embassy and claim asylum. Probably cheaper than using the smuggling gangs.

[Farmer Saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo

I mean, that's just fucking negligent if true.

[Gloucester Saint]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo

I mean, that's just fucking negligent if true.

Still savings there to be made but there’s been a lot of change in the five years since the start of what was the pandemic so they should be doing a fresh review robustly/objectively. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9wxnlnrxdo

I mean, that's just fucking negligent if true.

In the early 1990s I was part of a team looking into the technical and financial sides of one Local Authority becoming a Unitary, the premise of which was to save several million pounds. The team's conclusion was that the costs asociated with the changes outweighed the "savings", though not by much.

Following this assesment, a second political review was carried out which found, perhaps conveniently, that the first one had underestimated the savings, and the process went ahead.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

In the early 1990s I was part of a team looking into the technical and financial sides of one Local Authority becoming a Unitary, the premise of which was to save several million pounds. The team's conclusion was that the costs asociated with the changes outweighed the "savings", though not by much.

Following this assesment, a second political review was carried out which found, perhaps conveniently, that the first one had underestimated the savings, and the process went ahead.

Quelle surprise...

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Quelle surprise...

Mind you, I got a pay rise and promotion out of it.

[badgerx16]

The Court of Appeal rule that the asylum seekers can remain in the hotel in Epping.

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

The Court of Appeal rule that the asylum seekers can remain in the hotel in Epping.

The manufacturers are going to run out of flags 

[east-stand-nic]

Quick question. How many top aides has Kier starmer sacked in the last year?

[egg]

4 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Quick question. How many top aides has Kier starmer sacked in the last year?

Quick question. Do you want to know so that you can give him a round of applause for each sacking of a duff employee? I think he needs 3. 

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Quick question. How many top aides has Kier starmer sacked in the last year?

Boris lost 5 in 24 hours in February 2022.

[Weston Super Saint]

44 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Boris lost 5 in 24 hours in February 2022.

"Top" aides?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

"Top" aides?

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-04/who-are-the-four-senior-aides-who-quit-no-10

The person who wrote the manifesto and was formerly a deputy Mayor of London, his Director of Communications, his Principal Private Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and the Special Advisor on women and equalities.

[Sir Ralph]

6 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

"Top" aides?

Politically the Bell Hotel issue is a nightmare for Labour. They had to defend the position as there is no alternative for relocating the asylum seekers got removed from hotels. However, to most people, despite what Starmer has says, it looks like he and his cabinet has sent the Home Office out to defend asylum seekers over locals and won. This is going to be a big problem for him that is going to rumble on the more and more media attention this gets.

Edited Friday at 23:44 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

6 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Politically the Bell Hotel issue is a nightmare for Labour. They had to defend the position as there is no alternative for relocating the asylum seekers got removed from hotels. However, to most people, despite what Starmer has says, it looks like he and his cabinet has sent the Home Office out to defend asylum seekers over locals and won. This is going to be a big problem for him that is going to rumble on the more and more media attention this gets. Reform are going to capitalise big time.

The only thing I worry about is Starmer being toppled and Rayner getting in. Then we are all really, really screwed (not just screwed like we are now).

@badgerx16 why are you laughing? I wasn’t blaming Labour - I said they are in trouble over it but they had no choice but to defend their position.

Edited Friday at 23:43 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

@badgerx16 why are you laughing? I wasn’t blaming Labour - I said they are in trouble over it but they had no choice but to defend their position. But whilst we are at it, I’m glad they have found themselves in this position as politically it looks like another major u turn. Any narrow chance of being re-elected is rapidly diminishing.

Also the latest shambles is a tax on landlords. Great idea - pass additional costs onto renters and tenants who aren’t home owners.  “We don’t want to tax working people”. Jokers.

Sorry, the spirit of Nutty Nic must have overcome me.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Sorry, the spirit of Nutty Nic must have overcome me.

You would have made a much more rationale response than normal, if that was the case.😉

[Convict Colony]

Not read anything but has anyone ever answered why one of starmers homes was fire bombed by 3 young ukrainian men.

Anyway i detest politicians but 1 i do have respect for is lee kuan yew, the worlds best dictator, long term vision and strategy enables long term achievements, the popularity contest every 4yrs is rubbish.

[whelk]

13 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Still savings there to be made but there’s been a lot of change in the five years since the start of what was the pandemic so they should be doing a fresh review robustly/objectively. 

I looked at the public consultation issued by Southampton and 11 other councils.

It was hopeless and no mention of cost of change or savings, just which boundary lines did I like and why. Fucking useless as what are they asking the public? Needs to done top down and in authoritarian style by people who know what they are talking ie not Deloitte 

No confidence in someone like Ange driving this sort thing. I respect her generally but she has no business or organisational change experience. The costs of these changes will be colossal. One option in the Southampton consultation was setting up a new council so 5 unitaries - even implementing the social care and education IT systems which are notoriously shit in a not very competitive market will take forever. Very sceptical about how that will save money as inevitably will introduce new overheads with no economies of scale. Although public consultations are largely bs, what will they deduce if the public want the most expensive one? 
They need proposals that should have centralised social care, HR, education IT systems etc and all the councils use the same. But none of that is in the consultation and looks like loads of egotistical councillors more concerned about keeping their ‘influence and power’

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-04/who-are-the-four-senior-aides-who-quit-no-10

The person who wrote the manifesto and was formerly a deputy Mayor of London, his Director of Communications, his Principal Private Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and the Special Advisor on women and equalities.

They worked for Boris. No one in that administration can be considered "top" at anything. Useless mongs.