The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, egg said:

Exactly. Labour have done pretty well in getting the legal migration numbers down in fairness

Have they?

I thought the drastic drop in legal migration was due to the stopping of visas for International student dependents / family as well as not counting International students as "migrants" which was introduced at the end of the Tory term?

I could have missed something though.

[badgerx16]

14 hours ago, aintforever said:

I’m in favour of the one in one out system, except I would change it so that for every genuine asylum seeker that rocks up I would sling out a lazy, entitled, scrounging Northerner. Dump that at Calais with nothing except a rubber dingy and see if they have the nuts to make the crossing to the country they claim to love.

What would you do with all the lazy entitled scrounging southerners ?

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have they?

I thought the drastic drop in legal migration was due to the stopping of visas for International student dependents / family as well as not counting International students as "migrants" which was introduced at the end of the Tory term?

I could have missed something though.

Year ending June 2025, but guess we'll need to wait until the end of the year for a proper LFL:

852,324 non-Visitor visas were granted. The breakdown was: 

Study: 435,891 visas 

Work: 286,071 visas (a 36% decrease from the previous year) 

Family: 70,961 visas 

Other: 59,401 visas 

 

Last year's stats:

Edited yesterday at 07:33 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

Oh well, this will help... 😔

It's a shame we're not still part of the EU as they'd be more compelled to help in that scenario.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8vr95n5n3o

 

[tdmickey3]

58 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What would you do with all the lazy entitled scrounging southerners ?

Do you mean the residents of the septic isle

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Year ending June 2025, but guess we'll need to wait until the end of the year for a proper LFL:

852,324 non-Visitor visas were granted. The breakdown was: 

Study: 435,891 visas 

Work: 286,071 visas (a 36% decrease from the previous year) 

Family: 70,961 visas 

Other: 59,401 visas 

 

Last year's stats:

I believe the 'work' one was because International students are no longer allowed to bring family / dependents with them, who traditionally were granted full working rights for the duration of the study period...

 

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I believe the 'work' one was because International students are no longer allowed to bring family / dependents with them, who traditionally were granted full working rights for the duration of the study period...

 

Honestly, I don't know. It would be good to see a proper breakdown of the stats, rather than the usual left/right interpretation of what the stats mean.

[Sir Ralph]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly285e5ljyo

Another mess. They seem to want to mess up on easy things that they dont need to attract heat on. It wouldnt surprise me if there were alternative reasons for expanding the inquiry as all politicians seemed to have wanted to brush the ethnicity and religious element of these crimes under the carpet. I understand the victims stance - if there has been a cover up for years by authorities why wouldnt they be suspicious of ongoing attempts to reduce the impact of an inquiry. To reiterate, the Tories could have dealt with this issue too and Labour are only doing this, not cause they want to, but because of the heat they have received over it from Rupert Lowe and Reform

Edited yesterday at 09:46 by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly285e5ljyo

Another mess. They seem to want to mess up on easy things that they dont need to attract heat on. It wouldnt surprise me if there were alternative reasons for expanding the inquiry as all politicians seemed to have wanted to brush the ethnicity and religious element of these crimes under the carpet. I understand the victims stance - if there has been a cover up for years by authorities why wouldnt they be suspicious of ongoing attempts to reduce the impact of an inquiry. To reiterate, the Tories could have dealt with this issue too and Labour are only doing this, not cause they want to, but because of the heat they have received over it from Rupert Lowe and Reform

And you know this, how?

Or is it just your hate for Labour fuelling it 

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

And you know this, how?

Or is it just your hate for Labour fuelling it 

Oh dear.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1xje9wzlo

[Farmer Saint]

32 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly285e5ljyo

Another mess. They seem to want to mess up on easy things that they dont need to attract heat on. It wouldnt surprise me if there were alternative reasons for expanding the inquiry as all politicians seemed to have wanted to brush the ethnicity and religious element of these crimes under the carpet. I understand the victims stance - if there has been a cover up for years by authorities why wouldnt they be suspicious of ongoing attempts to reduce the impact of an inquiry. To reiterate, the Tories could have dealt with this issue too and Labour are only doing this, not cause they want to, but because of the heat they have received over it from Rupert Lowe and Reform

Being discussed on the other thread, but seems like it's being over-politicised.

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Being discussed on the other thread, but seems like it's being over-politicised.

So the victims have politicised this? Maybe they arent party political (most likely - they arent members of political parties) and I think its more likely they have seen an issue

Edited yesterday at 10:29 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

So the victims have politicised this?

Potentially, a number of the victims have no issues, some do. 

Go to the other thread though. 

Edited yesterday at 10:29 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

19 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Oh dear.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1xje9wzlo

@tdmickey3 looking forward to your response to my question yesterday and your thoughts on the above. 

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Potentially, a number of the victims have no issues, some do. 

Go to the other thread though. 

Thats fine but to say people would prioritise political positions over addressing the sexual abuse, when you have been horrendously abused, is very, very unlikely. Your priority would be to stop the abuse of others and see justice, not make a political point. It see it much more likely that there actually issues with the set up of the Inquiry. 

[Sarnia Cherie]

Tony Abbott an Australian ex-PM has recently told this Government how to stop the boats but they won't listen any more than Starmer listened to Trump with his advice of stopping these boats.

When Tony Abbott was elected as PM, Australia were struggling with illegal migrants attempting to come in under the radar. They made a decision that every single person not using the legal asylum route would never be allowed to stay in Australia. All migrant boats were apprehended and the passengers securely detained and not in comfy hotels. On the next available day with calm weather and in daylight, they were put back on the boat they had arrived on with enough fuel, food and water and sent back. He said they were criticised globally for using this method but as Abbott says, his first priority was to his Australian citizens so they ignored the uproar, which soon calmed down, and carried on with their scheme. It worked for them and I can't see why it wouldn't work for us. Unfortunately, nobody in Government has the balls to put the British people first so this farce will continue.

[tdmickey3]

37 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

@tdmickey3 looking forward to your response to my question yesterday and your thoughts on the above. 

Fair enough but it was more a realisation that the country wanted it and it should happen, not just because of out parliamentary racists

[tdmickey3]

21 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Tony Abbott an Australian ex-PM has recently told this Government how to stop the boats but they won't listen any more than Starmer listened to Trump with his advice of stopping these boats.

When Tony Abbott was elected as PM, Australia were struggling with illegal migrants attempting to come in under the radar. They made a decision that every single person not using the legal asylum route would never be allowed to stay in Australia. All migrant boats were apprehended and the passengers securely detained and not in comfy hotels. On the next available day with calm weather and in daylight, they were put back on the boat they had arrived on with enough fuel, food and water and sent back. He said they were criticised globally for using this method but as Abbott says, his first priority was to his Australian citizens so they ignored the uproar, which soon calmed down, and carried on with their scheme. It worked for them and I can't see why it wouldn't work for us. Unfortunately, nobody in Government has the balls to put the British people first so this farce will continue.

95% using correct route and 5% using illegal routes, which is the bigger problem?

[LuckyNumber7]

20 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

95% using correct route and 5% using illegal routes, which is the bigger problem?

They both need sorting. At least in the 95% we have a fair idea of who we're letting in. With the boat people we have no clue, and as we've seen already in multiple cases, plenty of them are scum who pose a threat to the people in this country.

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

They both need sorting. At least in the 95% we have a fair idea of who we're letting in. With the boat people we have no clue, and as we've seen already in multiple cases, plenty of them are scum who pose a threat to the people in this country.

Correct, the whole immigration system needs a big overhaul but the rabid response to the 5% is completely OTT, all  whipped up by Yaxley Lennon, Farage and his ilk along with the news rags and sucked up by the gullible 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Tony Abbott an Australian ex-PM has recently told this Government how to stop the boats but they won't listen any more than Starmer listened to Trump with his advice of stopping these boats.

When Tony Abbott was elected as PM, Australia were struggling with illegal migrants attempting to come in under the radar. They made a decision that every single person not using the legal asylum route would never be allowed to stay in Australia. All migrant boats were apprehended and the passengers securely detained and not in comfy hotels. On the next available day with calm weather and in daylight, they were put back on the boat they had arrived on with enough fuel, food and water and sent back. He said they were criticised globally for using this method but as Abbott says, his first priority was to his Australian citizens so they ignored the uproar, which soon calmed down, and carried on with their scheme. It worked for them and I can't see why it wouldn't work for us. Unfortunately, nobody in Government has the balls to put the British people first so this farce will continue.

Given how far Australia is from anywhere, people presumably arrived on a boat that would actually make it to Australia, thus back where they departed. How does that compare with people arriving on dinghies that can't actually make it here, thus return to where they started? 

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Correct, the whole immigration system needs a big overhaul but the rabid response to the 5% is completely OTT, all  whipped up by Yaxley Lennon, Farage and his ilk along with the news rags and sucked up by the gullible 

A rabid response there may be but the British public have consistently voted for lower immigration for decades and the opposite has happened. I'm not surprised that many people are angry.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

@tdmickey3 looking forward to your response to my question yesterday and your thoughts on the above. 

The irony of this post 😂

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats fine but to say people would prioritise political positions over addressing the sexual abuse, when you have been horrendously abused, is very, very unlikely. Your priority would be to stop the abuse of others and see justice, not make a political point. It see it much more likely that there actually issues with the set up of the Inquiry. 

I think it's more they've been manipulated to do it.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Tony Abbott an Australian ex-PM has recently told this Government how to stop the boats but they won't listen any more than Starmer listened to Trump with his advice of stopping these boats.

When Tony Abbott was elected as PM, Australia were struggling with illegal migrants attempting to come in under the radar. They made a decision that every single person not using the legal asylum route would never be allowed to stay in Australia. All migrant boats were apprehended and the passengers securely detained and not in comfy hotels. On the next available day with calm weather and in daylight, they were put back on the boat they had arrived on with enough fuel, food and water and sent back. He said they were criticised globally for using this method but as Abbott says, his first priority was to his Australian citizens so they ignored the uproar, which soon calmed down, and carried on with their scheme. It worked for them and I can't see why it wouldn't work for us. Unfortunately, nobody in Government has the balls to put the British people first so this farce will continue.

But we don't allow all the legal routes we should, and if we did we would see a massive increase in applications (hence why we set the rule that you had to be in the UK to apply for Asylum).

But if we're happy to do that, then fine. Playing devil's advocate though, what do you do with those that come across on boats. Where do you send them back to if countries won't take them. What will happen in this scenario is they'll come over, not apply for asylum and disappear.

Edited yesterday at 12:53 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think it's more they've been manipulated to do it.

I don't consider it likely that Maggie Oliver has been manipulated. Even Labour ministers and backbenchers have been critical of Jess Phillips. She's temperamentally unsuited to lead this sort of thing.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I don't consider it likely that Maggie Oliver has been manipulated. Even Labour ministers and backbenchers have been critical of Jess Phillips. She's temperamentally unsuited to lead this sort of thing.

Genuinely, I don't know.

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Genuinely, I don't know.

Fair enough. In fairness it's probably a bit of playing politics and a bit a reasonable point.

[tdmickey3]

53 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

A rabid response there may be but the British public have consistently voted for lower immigration for decades and the opposite has happened. I'm not surprised that many people are angry.

The British public have voted in who ever they think makes them better off and promises of things that never seem to happen... like the NHS money slogan on the bus...

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

The British public have voted in who ever they think makes them better off and promises of things that never seem to happen... like the NHS money slogan on the bus...

Polling indicates that immigration numbers have been one of the top issues for voters. Consecutive governments have been voted in promising to reduce immigration and have the done the opposite.

[tdmickey3]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Polling indicates that immigration numbers have been one of the top issues for voters. Consecutive governments have been voted in promising to reduce immigration and have the done the opposite.

Fair enough

But if a party said we will give you more money in your pocket but didnt promise to end Immigration and the other said we will cure Immigration but less money, who do you think would get most votes ?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Fair enough

But if a party said we will give you more money in your pocket but didnt promise to end Immigration and the other said we will cure Immigration but less money, who do you think would get most votes ?

It's not just the money it's hospital appointments, availability of housing, public services etc. I accept that some people only care about money in their pocket but I personally think more care about things beyond that than we might think.

[Sir Ralph]

.

Edited yesterday at 14:42 by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I’m going to shock myself by saying this but in the industry I work in there is about to be an announcement that has listened to those of us that have been lobbying them and it will create really positive economic growth. Well done to the Government. 

They're allowing porn shoots to run after 4pm on a Sunday?

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

They're allowing porn shoots to run after 4pm on a Sunday?

Very good 🤣

[tdmickey3]

13 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m going to shock myself by saying this but in the industry I work in there is about to be an announcement that has listened to those of us that have been lobbying them and it will create really positive economic growth. Well done to the Government. 

That must be painful

[tdmickey3]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not just the money it's hospital appointments, availability of housing, public services etc. I accept that some people only care about money in their pocket but I personally think more care about things beyond that than we might think.

Me too, but most don`t

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not just the money it's hospital appointments, availability of housing, public services etc. I accept that some people only care about money in their pocket but I personally think more care about things beyond that than we might think.

How many hospital appointments are taken up by immigrants compared to the number made unavailable because there aren't enough immigrants to fill NHS vacancies ?

[Sir Ralph]

21 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

That must be painful

Not really- I can see the positive things in people that I don’t agree with and acknowledge it. Don’t have a problem admitting it because experience tells you that everyone has good and bad attributes, just at different levels. You should try it. You can admit people who you don’t agree with can be right - it’s ok

Edited yesterday at 14:28 by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

How many hospital appointments are taken up by immigrants compared to the number made unavailable because there aren't enough immigrants to fill NHS vacancies ?

I agree we should train more of our own people. Pretty sure I read recently that a load of junior doctors trained in this country were striking because there were no jobs for them after graduating because hospitals were taking immigrants instead

 

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree we should train more of our own people. Pretty sure I read recently that a load of junior doctors trained in this country were striking because there were no jobs for them after graduating because hospitals were taking immigrants instead

 

Striking when you are unemployed will have very limited impact 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Striking when you are unemployed will have very limited impact 

Can't remember the details and can't be bothered to look.

[Farmer Saint]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree we should train more of our own people. Pretty sure I read recently that a load of junior doctors trained in this country were striking because there were no jobs for them after graduating because hospitals were taking immigrants instead

 

 

[Sarnia Cherie]

5 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

95% using correct route and 5% using illegal routes, which is the bigger problem?

Neither are ideal but I feel those trying to sneak their way in have something to hide. 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But we don't allow all the legal routes we should, and if we did we would see a massive increase in applications (hence why we set the rule that you had to be in the UK to apply for Asylum).

But if we're happy to do that, then fine. Playing devil's advocate though, what do you do with those that come across on boats. Where do you send them back to if countries won't take them. What will happen in this scenario is they'll come over, not apply for asylum and disappear.

Portsea Island.

Or the Isle of Wight.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

How many hospital appointments are taken up by immigrants compared to the number made unavailable because there aren't enough immigrants to fill NHS vacancies ?

According to the news on the radio today, the Union is claiming there are 1000 doctors out of work.  Presumably there are no NHS vacancies?

[tdmickey3]

41 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Neither are ideal but I feel those trying to sneak their way in have something to hide. 

Big generalisation there

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Given how far Australia is from anywhere, people presumably arrived on a boat that would actually make it to Australia, thus back where they departed. How does that compare with people arriving on dinghies that can't actually make it here, thus return to where they started? 

Not all, a lot were picked up and sent to offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The main plank of the policy was anyone who arrived by boat would never be resettled in Australia, even if they are found to be a genuine refugee. This stopped them.

I presume they have “human rights” in Australia despite not being in the ECHR…..

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Not all, a lot were picked up and sent to offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The main plank of the policy was anyone who arrived by boat would never be resettled in Australia, even if they are found to be a genuine refugee. This stopped them.

I presume they have “human rights” in Australia despite not being in the ECHR…..

That's what needs to happen here. You will never be a citizen, you will never have leave to remain, you will never receive benefits or aid beyond the very basics. That will reduce the numbers undoubtedly.

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

According to the news on the radio today, the Union is claiming there are 1000 doctors out of work.  Presumably there are no NHS vacancies?

Most positions in the NHS are not for doctors.

Edited yesterday at 17:45 by badgerx16