BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
we need a breakdown, by day, of when the 105,853 migrants crossed the Channel, to do this calculation 🙂
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
we need a breakdown, by day, of when the 105,853 migrants crossed the Channel, to do this calculation 🙂
Spin off benefit from individual investment choices and not part of UK Government growth plans.
I was originally talking about Labour's plans (or lack of plans) for growth. Income from overseas investments income is beyond UK Gov's control.
Also, it's a complex analysis I have no idea about. Do people with Stocks & Shares ISAs tend to take the income to spend or do they tend to leave it in the ISA given that left in the ISA it is compound interest tax free (when they do finally take it). I have no idea. I'm maybe different but my cash ISAs have always had interest left in-place to compound and raiding savings comes from other accounts.
Ian
AndyRM
Elder Goth
icowden
Squire
Your imagination?
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
It is if there’s no evidence, from a reliable source, to back it up.
icowden
Squire
Yes. Quite simply, we don't know how many illegal immigrants are in the UK.
There may be far more or far less.
We do know that there were 99,790 people who had claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2024, of which 22,724 were dependants (i.e. children). This of course was an increase from 2023 due to various wars around the world.
You, of course, would class them as illegal immigrants and presumably therefore scum. You perceive them as worthless. Not only that but I'm sure you'll start waving the estimated £3.96 billion that illegal immigration cost the UK in the year up to 2023 like it's some sort of slam dunk.
It is, in fact a financial catastrophe entirely created by the previous Conservative Governments. Studies estimate that immigrants contribute around £2.5bn to the economy. If you remove all legal methods of claiming asylum, then you remove all chance of legal immigration. As the backlog builds up, so does the cost of housing and feeding the now illegal immigrants that you are not dealing with.
All of the illegal immigrants could be working, feeding themselves and paying tax to the exchequer.
When people are displaced from their home countries, they are not looking for which country has the best handouts. They are looking for somewhere safe. Preferably somewhere where they might know some people, or can speak the language. Many people around the world speak English rather than German or Italian. Not only that but immigrants are not useless. Before they were displaced by war or religious oppression, they had jobs. At the moment we have people qualified as doctors in their home country who are working as cleaners to try to afford the money to re-do training and certification to use their actual skills.
If Starmer had some balls, the easiest way to solve the problem would be to immediately grant asylum to all of the people being housed and paid for by the Government. The number of "criminals" would be tiny compared to the immediate benefit of the exchequer. At the same time, safe and legal methods of claiming asylum should be introduced. This would help to eliminate the small boat crossings that gammons like to froth about.
Worldwide displacement is only going to get worse as the environment changes. Starmer should be making changes now rather than continuing the shoot show of the previous administration.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Very well put.
CXRAndy
Regular
C R
Veteran
Wowser
Multi defending a woman
Albeit with a deep voice
If you are aiming for a career in comedy I wouldn't leave my day job just yet if I were you.
icowden
Squire
Is it? I thought it was a play on "Colin from accounts" which itself is a play on accountants being good but boring. (See also Colin the emotional vampire in What We Do in the Shadows).
