The Reform Thread

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I heard someone discussing it the other day. Can’t remember who it was, may have been Glassman who is pretty sensible for a labour figure. Anyway the analysis was,  voters did go back to labour in the red wall, but not because they thought they’d made a mistake and would never vote against labour again, but because The Tories let them down. They are perfectly willing to abandon labour again if they let them down. Labour cannot continue to say “we hear you, we understand your concerns, but you’re wrong so we’re just carrying on as before”. People voted for change in ‘24, and change doesn’t mean Breakfast clubs, youth mobility schemes and a 5 day wait to see a doctor instead of 6….If there isn’t a step change in both legal & illigal immigration, some decent growth in the economy & a fundamental change in NHS performance by the next election, they’re as fucked as the Tories…

Hard to disagree. Bringing down numbers hugely, growing the economy in a meaningful way per capita will be huge factors like you say. Some of these trade deals might be a good start but if they result in waves of more migrants it's not going to touch the sides. 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hard to disagree. Bringing down numbers hugely, growing the economy in a meaningful way per capita will be huge factors like you say. Some of these trade deals might be a good start but if they result in waves of more migrants it's not going to touch the sides. 

But you said it's all about personalities. LD'd post focuses on policies. 

Anyways, Reform are gaining traction because people buy into their populist policies, and don't believe in the other parties.

Sadly the comments I see from their supporters on social media suggests that they can't join up the dots. They simultaneously want the fuel allowance restoring, but taxes reduced. They want a better NHS but support a party who want rid of it, and want less immigration to staff it, and less tax to fund it.  I fear we'll end up with this lot in power though, regardless of the personalities involved. 

[revolution saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If there isn’t a step change in both legal & illigal immigration, some decent growth in the economy & a fundamental change in NHS performance by the next election, they’re as fucked as the Tories…

Hold on, weren't you the one happily proclaiming that "Remoaners just don't get it, it's not about the money".  Seems a bit misguided to start moaning about the economy now.

[sadoldgit]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

But you said it's all about personalities. LD'd post focuses on policies. 

Anyways, Reform are gaining traction because people buy into their populist policies, and don't believe in the other parties.

Sadly the comments I see from their supporters on social media suggests that they can't join up the dots. They simultaneously want the fuel allowance restoring, but taxes reduced. They want a better NHS but support a party who want rid of it, and want less immigration to staff it, and less tax to fund it.  I fear we'll end up with this lot in power though, regardless of the personalities involved. 

Hammer on head. Sadly the same people who were responsible for giving us Brexit are probably going to be responsible for giving us Reform of the ruling party at the next election. Joined up thinking just doesn’t work for them which is why Farage gets air time.

The immigration figures are coming down but you won’t hear a peep out of them about that. They will just focus on the small boats because Farage has taped into the “give them an enemy to blame the fact that they have a shit life” on.

You just have to look at the way that they have swallowed Farage’s misrepresented view of the India trade view to see that they are not bothered about the truth. They just want their prejudices reinforced. It is what Trump does in the US. It is what Farage does here. And people still swallow it despite their lies being exposed daily. Thick as mince, the lot of them.

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

But you said it's all about personalities. LD'd post focuses on policies. 

Anyways, Reform are gaining traction because people buy into their populist policies, and don't believe in the other parties.

Sadly the comments I see from their supporters on social media suggests that they can't join up the dots. They simultaneously want the fuel allowance restoring, but taxes reduced. They want a better NHS but support a party who want rid of it, and want less immigration to staff it, and less tax to fund it.  I fear we'll end up with this lot in power though, regardless of the personalities involved. 

Of course policies will contribute to the public mood and be a factor in election. The idea that the personalities of the politicians aren't also significant factors is a pretty silly thing to say.

You don't think that Boris, Nigel, Obama, Trump, Blair, Bill Clinton to name a random few haven't had the success they have had because they appeal and are popular with a decisive number of the electorate? Similarly Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn failed at least in part because they lacked widespread appeal and didn't have personal qualities that enough of the electorate were looking for. Like I said, elections in the main are popularity contests, it just depends what the electorate is looking for at the time. 

[egg]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Of course policies will contribute to the public mood and be a factor in election. The idea that the personalities of the politicians aren't also significant factors is a pretty silly thing to say.

You don't think that Boris, Nigel, Obama, Trump, Blair, Bill Clinton to name a random few haven't had the success they have had because they appeal and are popular with a decisive number of the electorate? Similarly Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn failed at least in part because they lacked widespread appeal and didn't have personal qualities that enough of the electorate were looking for. Like I said, elections in the main are popularity contests, it just depends what the electorate is looking for at the time. 

You previously said that elections are "100% a popularity contest" and that "Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities".  That's massively different to policies first, and personality's selling them, which is what you now appear to be saying. 

 I agree that personality goes a long way, but your previous suggestion that it's all about personalities is wrong. 

[Gloucester Saint]

16 hours ago, Saint86 said:

There seems to have been epic complacency re reform from Labour until now, and to be honest its still continuing.

Johnson beat corbyn in 2019 to secure a majority, he did it by taking the red wall seats. Starmer won this current majority with a similar vote share to corbyn's fairly staggering loss. The core reason for that was because a huge number of those "red/blue" wall seats voted for reform in 2024 - splitting the tory/reform vote, and ensuring Labour had enough to win those seats. But crucially for me, those voters that voted reform were never really Tory voters in the first place, many of them were voting tory for the first time ever when they voted for Johnson, Brexit, and against Labour. But they are meant to be Labour's core voters... and basically they've not gone back to labour.... they've gone to Reform. How many seats did Labour win in 2024 with reform narrowly behind them in 2nd? Reform have gained backing and momentum ever since then, and the recent local elections (and the by-election) demonstrate that they have mobilised even more of labour's core vote. Labour are going to lose a lot of seats to reform in the next GE - The winter fuel allowances, migration, taxing jobs... its all going to come home to roost with respect to those voters.

There’s some truth here but also a massive unknown in how Reform will behave and perform in positions of responsibility. Because in Thanet and Derbyshire it was an unmitigated implosion beyond even the Tories 2020-24. They already parted company with Lowe and a lot of their new councillors are ex-Tories who were too hot to handle there and very individualist.

Unless the mavericks can somehow knit together, they’ll be a bigger and high profile party of protest but that will be it.

That’s why despite a breakthrough result last week, I wouldn’t be getting the bunting and open top bus out quite yet. Top of the league in August. Their policies are going to be scrutinised far more now as Corbyn’s were after 2017.  

They are a feature on the landscape now, definitely, but a long, long way to go before we know if it’s automatics, play-offs, mid-table or bottom half.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

There’s some truth here but also a massive unknown in how Reform will behave and perform in positions of responsibility. Because in Thanet and Derbyshire it was an unmitigated implosion beyond even the Tories 2020-24. They already parted company with Lowe and a lot of their new councillors are ex-Tories who were too hot to handle there and very individualist.

Unless the mavericks can somehow knit together, they’ll be a bigger and high profile party of protest but that will be it.

That’s why despite a breakthrough result last week, I wouldn’t be getting the bunting and open top bus out quite yet. Top of the league in August. Their policies are going to be scrutinised far more now as Corbyn’s were after 2017.  

They are a feature on the landscape now, definitely, but a long, long way to go before we know if it’s automatics, play-offs, mid-table or bottom half.

At least when the markets exposed what a clown Truss was , the Tories could fall back to someone moderately competent in understand economics. Imagine these cunts parachuting Lee Anderson in. Aye up chaps who’s me fookin scapegoat? what the fuck is a bond market and what the fuck am I meant do about it?

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You previously said that elections are "100% a popularity contest" and that "Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities".  That's massively different to policies first, and personality's selling them, which is what you now appear to be saying. 

 I agree that personality goes a long way, but your previous suggestion that it's all about personalities is wrong. 

I don't agree that it's policies first and personalities selling them. Elections are a popularity contest and elections ns have been decided on personalities including all the people I just outlined. 

[egg]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't agree that it's policies first and personalities selling them. Elections are a popularity contest and elections ns have been decided on personalities including all the people I just outlined. 

Ok mate, if that's your belief. 

[Wade Garrett]

6 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I heard someone discussing it the other day. Can’t remember who it was, may have been Glassman who is pretty sensible for a labour figure. Anyway the analysis was,  voters did go back to labour in the red wall, but not because they thought they’d made a mistake and would never vote against labour again, but because The Tories let them down. They are perfectly willing to abandon labour again if they let them down. Labour cannot continue to say “we hear you, we understand your concerns, but you’re wrong so we’re just carrying on as before”. People voted for change in ‘24, and change doesn’t mean Breakfast clubs, youth mobility schemes and a 5 day wait to see a doctor instead of 6….If there isn’t a step change in both legal & illigal immigration, some decent growth in the economy & a fundamental change in NHS performance by the next election, they’re as fucked as the Tories…

Absolutely spot on.  Need to do more than ‘smash the gangs’.  The British public are fed up with immigration, particularly illegal, and this was clearly demonstrated in last week’s voting.

[Wade Garrett]

18 hours ago, Saint86 said:

There seems to have been epic complacency re reform from Labour until now, and to be honest its still continuing.

Johnson beat corbyn in 2019 to secure a majority, he did it by taking the red wall seats. Starmer won this current majority with a similar vote share to corbyn's fairly staggering loss. The core reason for that was because a huge number of those "red/blue" wall seats voted for reform in 2024 - splitting the tory/reform vote, and ensuring Labour had enough to win those seats. But crucially for me, those voters that voted reform were never really Tory voters in the first place, many of them were voting tory for the first time ever when they voted for Johnson, Brexit, and against Labour. But they are meant to be Labour's core voters... and basically they've not gone back to labour.... they've gone to Reform. How many seats did Labour win in 2024 with reform narrowly behind them in 2nd? Reform have gained backing and momentum ever since then, and the recent local elections (and the by-election) demonstrate that they have mobilised even more of labour's core vote. Labour are going to lose a lot of seats to reform in the next GE - The winter fuel allowances, migration, taxing jobs... its all going to come home to roost with respect to those voters.

If the next election was now I would agree with you.  But it won’t be for another 4 years - plenty of time for things to change.  Thatcher was really unpopular in her first few years but won the country round.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Absolutely spot on.  Need to do more than ‘smash the gangs’.  The British public are fed up with immigration, particularly illegal, and this was clearly demonstrated in last week’s voting.

As I’ve observed from years of posts that you are more of an economically left of centre poster (like me) with some social views more on the right, I’m genuinely curious about what immigration is the most/least frustrating for you or whether you potentially support some migration in certain scenarios. I’m a Lib Dem voter and focused on reducing asylum cases, but that probably isn’t the case for most Labour/potential Reform. Is it?

- Healthcare workers eg nurses, doctors, surgeons, dentists legally?

- Social care workers legally where we’ve got ever growing demand with an ageing population and the locals won’t fill the vacancies 

- Agricultural seasonal workers on temporary permits

- Construction workers fully qualified in areas of skills gaps which can’t be filled in the short-medium term

- Footballers at different levels of the UK pyramids, plus other sports

- Scientists or other academics temporarily in refuge here from a conflict zone working and publishing whilst their homeland’s issues are resolved

- Scientists moving to the UK to work and paying visa/health surcharge costs

- Students/young people from the EU on exchange trips of 12 months with UK youngsters able to go the other way

- Students studying in the UK

- Ukrainian families seeking refuge in areas near or in the conflict zones who are working/studying in the UK

- Illegal economic migrants from Asia working in UK businesses

- Asylum seekers from nations not formally observed as being in conflicts where there may be regional issues or people smuggling eg Turkey, Albania

- Asylum seekers coming via France by boats and other means

- Asylum seekers from nations or regions with a significant record of terrorism against Western targets/citizens if even if the individuals don’t 

- Asylum seekers seeking refuge from formally-recognised conflicts

Edited yesterday at 20:11 by Gloucester Saint

[Wade Garrett]

8 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

As I’ve observed from years of posts that you are more of an economically left of centre poster (like me) with some social views more on the right, I’m genuinely curious about what immigration is the most/least frustrating for you or whether you potentially support some migration in certain scenarios. I’m a Lib Dem voter and focused on reducing asylum cases, but that probably isn’t the case for most Labour/potential Reform. Is it?

- Healthcare workers eg nurses, doctors, surgeons, dentists legally?

- Social care workers legally where we’ve got ever growing demand with an ageing population and the locals won’t fill the vacancies 

- Agricultural seasonal workers on temporary permits

- Construction workers fully qualified in areas of skills gaps which can’t be filled in the short-medium term

- Footballers at different levels of the UK pyramids, plus other sports

- Scientists or other academics temporarily in refuge here from a conflict zone working and publishing whilst their homeland’s issues are resolved

- Scientists moving to the UK to work and paying visa/health surcharge costs

- Students/young people from the EU on exchange trips of 12 months with UK youngsters able to go the other way

- Students studying in the UK

- Ukrainian families seeking refuge in areas near or in the conflict zones who are working/studying in the UK

- Illegal economic migrants from Asia working in UK businesses

- Asylum seekers from nations not formally observed as being in conflicts where there may be regional issues or people smuggling eg Turkey, Albania

- Asylum seekers coming via France by boats and other means

- Asylum seekers from nations or regions with a significant record of terrorism against Western targets/citizens if even if the individuals don’t 

- Asylum seekers seeking refuge from formally-recognised conflicts

I’m not against immigration at all.  I am against uncontrolled immigration.  Our economy and services obviously need help with overseas labour.  This is in part our own fault, not enough training or opportunities for our youngsters, and immigration can plug that gap while we get our house in order.

The numbers of legal immigrants has to be reduced though - we simply can’t sustain the current numbers.

We should also do our bit for those persecuted in their own countries, but that doesn’t mean a golden ticket.

I am firmly against illegal migration.  We have no control over it and know little of the backgrounds of those who come in.  Personally, I would turn every one of these away.  I think Starmer was too quick to end the Rwanda experiment.  He will be very much judged at the next election on immigration as Reform will keep it as top of the political agenda.

[sadoldgit]

Even James Cleverley called the “Rwanda Experiment” ‘batshit crazy’ when it was first mooted. Think about it. If people are not deterred by the prospect of drowning in the channel, why would they be deterred by the slim prospect of being sent to Rwanda? The numbers mentioned meant that you had a slim chance of going even if planes were getting off the ground.

It was an expensive stunt.

People have been coming here either is small boats or the back of Lorrie’s for years. It is technically impossible to stop them arriving. Yes, more needs to be done to stop them getting into the boats in the first place, but the major problem in recent times has been what to do with them when they get here. The Tories let the problem mount by not processing the claims quickly enough leaving the situation ripe for exploitation by the likes of Farage (and if you think that he could solve the problem overnight that is another notion that should be filed under ‘batshit crazy’.

People are entitled to seek asylum here. We need to find of way of dealing with those applications without people having to put their lives at risk and we need to speed up the process so that people are not held in limbo at great expense for months.

It also makes perfect sense for people to be able to work here whilst waiting for their claims to be processed. They could then contribute to the economy  rather than be a drain on it.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

I’m not against immigration at all.  I am against uncontrolled immigration.  Our economy and services obviously need help with overseas labour.  This is in part our own fault, not enough training or opportunities for our youngsters, and immigration can plug that gap while we get our house in order.

The numbers of legal immigrants has to be reduced though - we simply can’t sustain the current numbers.

We should also do our bit for those persecuted in their own countries, but that doesn’t mean a golden ticket.

I am firmly against illegal migration.  We have no control over it and know little of the backgrounds of those who come in.  Personally, I would turn every one of these away.  I think Starmer was too quick to end the Rwanda experiment.  He will be very much judged at the next election on immigration as Reform will keep it as top of the political agenda.

Agree with many points there and thanks for responding. I think with Rwanda it was the sheer cost on top of what the Tories had already burdened the country in with, which their donors have profited to the tune of £383m https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2720n2kkjo

Triple the original costs Johnson estimated whilst stopping processing asylum cases so people failing could be swiftly removed. They weren’t, creating the chronic backlog.

And people wonder where the budget black hole came from! Don’t agree with what Reeves has done to address it since but an appalling and unacceptable inheritance Johnson and Braverman need to apologise to us for.

Edited 14 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

3 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

I’m not against immigration at all.  I am against uncontrolled immigration.  Our economy and services obviously need help with overseas labour.  This is in part our own fault, not enough training or opportunities for our youngsters, and immigration can plug that gap while we get our house in order.

The numbers of legal immigrants has to be reduced though - we simply can’t sustain the current numbers.

We should also do our bit for those persecuted in their own countries, but that doesn’t mean a golden ticket.

I am firmly against illegal migration.  We have no control over it and know little of the backgrounds of those who come in.  Personally, I would turn every one of these away.  I think Starmer was too quick to end the Rwanda experiment.  He will be very much judged at the next election on immigration as Reform will keep it as top of the political agenda.

It's easy for people to say that they're against illegal immigration, and mock the 'smash the gangs' pledge, but the fact that that the Tories could come up with nothing better than Rwanda highlights the difficulty in doing anything about it. If people rock up in little boats in our waters claiming persecution and seeking asylum, in reality, what do you expect any government to do? 

[Weston Super Saint]

27 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Even James Cleverley called the “Rwanda Experiment” ‘batshit crazy’ when it was first mooted. Think about it. If people are not deterred by the prospect of drowning in the channel, why would they be deterred by the slim prospect of being sent to Rwanda? 

 

Just a stab in the dark, but I don't imagine that the glossy sales brochures encouraging people to cross the channel in a small boat contain too much detail about the prospect of drowning.  Can't know for sure as I've never seen one, but I doubt it's one of the selling points.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just a stab in the dark, but I don't imagine that the glossy sales brochures encouraging people to cross the channel in a small boat contain too much detail about the prospect of drowning.  Can't know for sure as I've never seen one, but I doubt it's one of the selling points.

Sounds like moody people traffickers and politicians are similar - over promise, under deliver, over charge, under deliver. 

[CB Fry]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just a stab in the dark, but I don't imagine that the glossy sales brochures encouraging people to cross the channel in a small boat contain too much detail about the prospect of drowning.  Can't know for sure as I've never seen one, but I doubt it's one of the selling points.

Well those brochures aren't going to mention Rwanda either so not sure what your point is.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It's easy for people to say that they're against illegal immigration, and mock the 'smash the gangs' pledge, but the fact that that the Tories could come up with nothing better than Rwanda highlights the difficulty in doing anything about it. If people rock up in little boats in our waters claiming persecution and seeking asylum, in reality, what do you expect any government to do? 

A radical idea....

We allow 'all' immigration, legal, illegal or any other type!

When people reach the UK, they need to register.  This registration process will mean they have zero access to ANY public services.  No NHS, no benefits, no legal etc etc.  If they want access then they have to pay - a fair and reasonable rate that covers the costs in full.  We allow all migrants to work, they can do whatever job they like - I know there's an argument that says this will take away jobs from 'British' people, but it really won't, certainly not those that 'want' to work.  

The key part to this strategy is that we want people to be 'valuable' members of society, contributing to the country, so we introduce very strict rules.  One strike and you're out, none of this three strikes and a few more for good measure.  This can be on any 'crime' no matter how big or small.  Get caught speeding and you're out, deported to your original country, no questions asked, no route for appeal.  Simple.

We make the country inviting for those that are happy to abide by the law, but uninviting for those that aren't.

*I reserve the right to claim that the opiods are still quite strong  

[Gloucester Saint]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

It's easy for people to say that they're against illegal immigration, and mock the 'smash the gangs' pledge, but the fact that that the Tories could come up with nothing better than Rwanda highlights the difficulty in doing anything about it. If people rock up in little boats in our waters claiming persecution and seeking asylum, in reality, what do you expect any government to do? 

And it was the sheer cost and VFM vs how many it was going to remove, more have been removed through accelerated processing (or just some) than Rwanda would ever have achieved. It’s why Israel canned their scheme. That’s on top of the £15bn Johnson and Braverman tied us into on asylum accommodation.

There’s plenty I can pick holes in with Labour but the Rwanda isn’t one of them, unless the supporters of it are saying they are willing to pay an extra 5p in the pound in tax to fund it, on top of the world’s most expensive visa system?

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A radical idea....

We allow 'all' immigration, legal, illegal or any other type!

When people reach the UK, they need to register.  This registration process will mean they have zero access to ANY public services.  No NHS, no benefits, no legal etc etc.  If they want access then they have to pay - a fair and reasonable rate that covers the costs in full.  We allow all migrants to work, they can do whatever job they like - I know there's an argument that says this will take away jobs from 'British' people, but it really won't, certainly not those that 'want' to work.  

The key part to this strategy is that we want people to be 'valuable' members of society, contributing to the country, so we introduce very strict rules.  One strike and you're out, none of this three strikes and a few more for good measure.  This can be on any 'crime' no matter how big or small.  Get caught speeding and you're out, deported to your original country, no questions asked, no route for appeal.  Simple.

We make the country inviting for those that are happy to abide by the law, but uninviting for those that aren't.

*I reserve the right to claim that the opiods are still quite strong  

What happens when an immigrant collapses in the street? Does an ambulance roll up, establish that they're an immigrant, then feck off? Do they turn up at A&E with a popped appendix, and then get sent to the car park to die? Crazy idea. 

It's ideas like yours, and Rwanda, which highlight that it's easy to object, but all but impossible to police. Traffickers prey on the vulnerable/desperate/greedy and persuade them that Britain is the land of milk and honey. When they get here, in reality, we can't do much when someone seeks asylum. 

You say 'send them back' when they've done wrong. Where, and how we can actually enforce that?

I get irritated by mass illegal immigration, but almost as irritated when people shout for ridiculous solutions. 

[Gloucester Saint]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A radical idea....

We allow 'all' immigration, legal, illegal or any other type!

When people reach the UK, they need to register.  This registration process will mean they have zero access to ANY public services.  No NHS, no benefits, no legal etc etc.  If they want access then they have to pay - a fair and reasonable rate that covers the costs in full.  We allow all migrants to work, they can do whatever job they like - I know there's an argument that says this will take away jobs from 'British' people, but it really won't, certainly not those that 'want' to work.  

The key part to this strategy is that we want people to be 'valuable' members of society, contributing to the country, so we introduce very strict rules.  One strike and you're out, none of this three strikes and a few more for good measure.  This can be on any 'crime' no matter how big or small.  Get caught speeding and you're out, deported to your original country, no questions asked, no route for appeal.  Simple.

We make the country inviting for those that are happy to abide by the law, but uninviting for those that aren't.

*I reserve the right to claim that the opiods are still quite strong  

The legal entrants already pay some of the heftiest visa and health surcharge fees in the world, which rose 40% in 2023 alone and remember, the health surcharge is annual for however long they’re here and they pay it for each of their dependents as well. So they’ve often spent ten grand before they even get on the plane. Some larger commercial employers will pay the up front costs or via large research grants for scientists but not for the majority. 

Where I think the country has to be more direct is where we are receiving people from Turkey, Albania or similar nations where there isn’t a clear conflict people are fleeing from (people smuggling for Albania) is turning those around as economic cases rapidly to send a message. That would make a dent in the numbers quite quickly. 

The genuine asylum cases from conflict zones are a different beast and have to be considered properly case by case. We could do it quicker though. That’s a legal requirement and won’t change even if God forbid, Reform ever got anywhere near power. That would  the least of our worries after they’d reduced the economy to ruins in a way far beyond Truss or Rachel from Accounts.

Edited 13 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Wade Garrett]

3 hours ago, egg said:

It's easy for people to say that they're against illegal immigration, and mock the 'smash the gangs' pledge, but the fact that that the Tories could come up with nothing better than Rwanda highlights the difficulty in doing anything about it. If people rock up in little boats in our waters claiming persecution and seeking asylum, in reality, what do you expect any government to do? 

Don’t put them up in hotels, don’t give free housing and healthcare, don’t offer benefits.  Personally, I think most asylum seekers are phoney.

[Gloucester Saint]

Inevitable given Canada’s been using it for a few years and Germany using dialect-based AI on speech since 2017 

https://www.context.news/ai/ai-will-help-make-life-or-death-calls-in-rammed-uk-asylum-system

https://www.ibanet.org/artificial-intelligence-in-immigration

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 hours ago, revolution saint said:

Hold on, weren't you the one happily proclaiming that "Remoaners just don't get it, it's not about the money".  Seems a bit misguided to start moaning about the economy now.

I was quoting somebody else 🤡. 
 

Id have thought

 heard someone discussing it the other day. Can’t remember who it was, may have been Glassman who is pretty sensible for a labour figure. Anyway the analysis was, 

may have been a clue, clearly not…

Edited 9 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 hours ago, egg said:

They want a better NHS but support a party who want rid of it,

Which party is that then? 

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Which party is that then? 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-reform-nhs-local-elections-starmer-b2742970.html

All very well, but no serious counter suggestion on how to fund it https://fullfact.org/health/reform-nigel-farage-pay-for-nhs-labour/

Edited 9 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-reform-nhs-local-elections-starmer-b2742970.html

All very well, but no serious counter suggestion on how to fund it https://fullfact.org/health/reform-nigel-farage-pay-for-nhs-labour/

Looking at different funding models appears pretty sensible to me. I certainly don’t see too many other countries rushing to adopt ours. 
 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

And it was the sheer cost and VFM vs how many it was going to remove, more have been removed through accelerated processing (or just some) than Rwanda would ever have achieved. It’s why Israel canned their scheme. That’s on top of the £15bn Johnson and Braverman tied us into on asylum accommodation.

There’s plenty I can pick holes in with Labour but the Rwanda isn’t one of them, unless the supporters of it are saying they are willing to pay an extra 5p in the pound in tax to fund it, on top of the world’s most expensive visa system?

Why do you keep lumping Boris in with people who want to control immigration. He’s probably more liberal than most labour MP’s when it comes to immigration, always has been. 
 

Half the Tory party don’t really want it brought down. They’re just like labour, wedded to it. They just pretend they’re not slightly better. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I was quoting somebody else 🤡. 
 

Id have thought

 heard someone discussing it the other day. Can’t remember who it was, may have been Glassman who is pretty sensible for a labour figure. Anyway the analysis was, 

may have been a clue, clearly not…

Bit disingenuous, you've repeated on a number of occasions when it suited you that Brexit was about more than the economy.  Here you are agreeing that Brexit was worth more than money.  I'm sure I can find some more quotes if you really want to go down that path:

 

[egg]

3 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

Don’t put them up in hotels, don’t give free housing and healthcare, don’t offer benefits.  Personally, I think most asylum seekers are phoney.

Back to my earlier questions...are you saying that when they attend A&E with a popped appendix that they're turned away? I don't want that to be our society. We're better than that. 

Are you saying that they live feral? If they don't get money for food or clothes, are you resigned to them stealing it? 

No disrespect, but I'm not sure that your approach plays the tape forward. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Which party is that then? 

The clue is in the title of the thread. 

The party that says this about the NHS:

"Maximising the health of the nation requires a fundamental shift away from seeing health as an NHS problem to solve".

 

 

[skintsaint]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

Back to my earlier questions...are you saying that when they attend A&E with a popped appendix that they're turned away? I don't want that to be our society. We're better than that. 

Are you saying that they live feral? If they don't get money for food or clothes, are you resigned to them stealing ?

Sounds a great deterrant.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Back to my earlier questions...are you saying that when they attend A&E with a popped appendix that they're turned away? I don't want that to be our society. We're better than that. 

Are you saying that they live feral? If they don't get money for food or clothes, are you resigned to them stealing it? 

No disrespect, but I'm not sure that your approach plays the tape forward. 

Don't forget, The Hunt leaves our gated enclosure at 9am on Sunday. Got to get out there sharpish before the organs of our prey fail or burst.

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Back to my earlier questions...are you saying that when they attend A&E with a popped appendix that they're turned away? I don't want that to be our society. We're better than that. 

Are you saying that they live feral? If they don't get money for food or clothes, are you resigned to them stealing it? 

No disrespect, but I'm not sure that your approach plays the tape forward. 

I'd say we could do a lot more to make it less desirable to come here for a start. That doesn't mean allowing people to die due to easily treatable medical conditions but it does mean spending less generally to house them and give them all handouts. Unfortunately there's just too many people coming here and it's deeply unfair to expect the taxpayer to pay for all this. 

[Challenger]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd say we could do a lot more to make it less desirable to come here for a start. That doesn't mean allowing people to die due to easily treatable medical conditions but it does mean spending less generally to house them and give them all handouts. Unfortunately there's just too many people coming here and it's deeply unfair to expect the taxpayer to pay for all this. 

Ask each eligible member of the electorate if they are prepared to pay for illegal immigration or not. If yes then you contribute through your taxes if not you don't. Sorted.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Ask each eligible member of the electorate if they are prepared to pay for illegal immigration or not. If yes then you contribute through your taxes if not you don't. Sorted.

Either that or they can personally house one and avoid any sort of related tax. 

[Challenger]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Either that or they can personally house one and avoid any sort of related tax. 

Worried you're getting a boat load of terrorists, murderers, rapist's or drug dealers then no expense to you 

 Concerned that you have a boat load of desperate migrants fleeing persecution, then tip up for the cost.

It's a win win situation.

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd say we could do a lot more to make it less desirable to come here for a start. That doesn't mean allowing people to die due to easily treatable medical conditions but it does mean spending less generally to house them and give them all handouts. Unfortunately there's just too many people coming here and it's deeply unfair to expect the taxpayer to pay for all this. 

Where do you suggest they stay? We can't magic accommodation out of thin air. Do we leave them feral?

Please give a practical solution rather than just the headline of 'lets make it less desirable'. That's just noise. 

I don't want so many illegals/faux asylum seekers either, but people have to be realistic about the impossibility of stopping it, and the need to put roofs over the heads of people/clothes on the back of people when they're here. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

Ask each eligible member of the electorate if they are prepared to pay for illegal immigration or not. If yes then you contribute through your taxes if not you don't. Sorted.

I’m in. I’d rather my tax went to asylum seekers than scrounging, entitled northerners. Even if they are economic migrants, which most are not, at least they are showing a bit of get-up and go instead of blaming all life’s ills on people who don’t look like them.

Edited 1 hour ago by aintforever

[trousers]