Starmer's vision quest

[icowden]

Erm, I asked "So you don't think that there are any economic migrants coming over on boats?" (relevant word in italics). You replied with a link saying that there was no evidence that the majority were economic migrants - which clearly means that quite a few are, even if they aren't a majority. So I think you have just agreed with my point...

If you had read the article it substantiated that hardly any are. So I haven't agreed with your point. That's how "No" works.

And as mentioned above, most are coming from France which is a safe country. So why do they need to come here? They are not in mortal danger where they set off from.

The reason that they are claiming asylum is that they are in danger where they set off from. They did not set off from France. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country they reach. It would make no sense for that to take place as any country next to a warzone would be inundated with refugees who would have no choice but to settle in that country. Refugees tend to head for a country where they have a potential support network and can speak the language of that country. French speaking refugees are more likely to claim asylum in France. France has mainly Afghan refugees because there is an Afghan community established there, then Turkish refugees -Turkish has quite a few french words making it a bit easier to understand. Then Cote D'Ivoire and Guinea both of which speak French.

As for 'boosting the economy', we want to do that with people coming here that we want to come here and/or have a valuable skillset. The majority of small boat arrivals will be either on benefits or will do low paid, unskilled work, so will overall be a cost to the taxpayer.

Again, complete nonsense. A Welsh study found that 27% of refugees had a university education. Only 10% had no formal education. 65% enrolled in English courses. 50% wanted to be in work, the rest wanted to be in work but barriers included language difficulties and difficulties accessing education to get better work. Those in work tended to be the ones with better language skills.

There are numerous articles on the web illustrating that asylum seekers often take menial work because their qualifications are not recognised and they do not have the money to re-qualify. The BBC covered a lady working as a cleaner who was a qualified doctor in her home country.

By investing in Asylum seekers you take them off benefits, grow the economy and get people who are likely to work harder and pay more tax than the indigenous population.

 

[CXRAndy]

Drag the biggers bųggers back to France

but thought they were all small boats

Shut it, you're on ignore

 

[CXRAndy]

If you had read the article it substantiated that hardly any are. So I haven't agreed with your point. That's how "No" works.


The reason that they are claiming asylum is that they are in danger where they set off from. They did not set off from France. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country they reach. It would make no sense for that to take place as any country next to a warzone would be inundated with refugees who would have no choice but to settle in that country. Refugees tend to head for a country where they have a potential support network and can speak the language of that country. French speaking refugees are more likely to claim asylum in France. France has mainly Afghan refugees because there is an Afghan community established there, then Turkish refugees -Turkish has quite a few french words making it a bit easier to understand. Then Cote D'Ivoire and Guinea both of which speak French.


Again, complete nonsense. A Welsh study found that 27% of refugees had a university education. Only 10% had no formal education. 65% enrolled in English courses. 50% wanted to be in work, the rest wanted to be in work but barriers included language difficulties and difficulties accessing education to get better work. Those in work tended to be the ones with better language skills.

There are numerous articles on the web illustrating that asylum seekers often take menial work because their qualifications are not recognised and they do not have the money to re-qualify. The BBC covered a lady working as a cleaner who was a qualified doctor in her home country.

By investing in Asylum seekers you take them off benefits, grow the economy and get people who are likely to work harder and pay more tax than the indigenous population.

You give low skilled immigrants jobs, which they won't complain about and deprive British of taking a job place. Endless sausage factory of cheap labour no need to train British

 

[First Aspect]

Indeed, how silly of all our Politicians, it may not be Starmer's "fault" but making announcements of plans/ambitions which cannot possibly be met will not rectify that.UK struggled to build a few ferries for the Scottish Islands, so, I doubt 12 attack submarines are plausible, regardless of the finances.

No, a failed Scottish shipyard saved from receivership by being awarded a rigged tender to build two ferries with a stupid specification devised by silly virtue signalling SNP politicians, couldn't build a ferry.

If that particular shipyard was told to build an arse, they'd have built an elbow for three times the cost and taken 10 years to do it.

 

[Ian H]

And as mentioned above, most are coming from France which is a safe country. So why do they need to come here?

The ones from areas of French influence mostly stay in France. The ones from areas where English is the second language come to the UK. It's one of the consequences of having had an empire.

 

[CXRAndy]

Labour has for years wanted everyone to have digital ID.

Doubt it will help with all the millions here already. They will try and stay in the shadows whilst the British are all scanned, processed and catalogued.

Undecided as to the benefits in tackling illegal migration as they do sweet FA when they do catch an illegal

Cooper also wants to end hotels for those being processed for asylum

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1929954623852335194?t=2xl73Jc2b5ysTYMLs_sTKQ&s=19

 

[Stevo 666]

If you had read the article it substantiated that hardly any are. So I haven't agreed with your point. That's how "No" works.


The reason that they are claiming asylum is that they are in danger where they set off from. They did not set off from France. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country they reach. It would make no sense for that to take place as any country next to a warzone would be inundated with refugees who would have no choice but to settle in that country. Refugees tend to head for a country where they have a potential support network and can speak the language of that country. French speaking refugees are more likely to claim asylum in France. France has mainly Afghan refugees because there is an Afghan community established there, then Turkish refugees -Turkish has quite a few french words making it a bit easier to understand. Then Cote D'Ivoire and Guinea both of which speak French.


Again, complete nonsense. A Welsh study found that 27% of refugees had a university education. Only 10% had no formal education. 65% enrolled in English courses. 50% wanted to be in work, the rest wanted to be in work but barriers included language difficulties and difficulties accessing education to get better work. Those in work tended to be the ones with better language skills.

There are numerous articles on the web illustrating that asylum seekers often take menial work because their qualifications are not recognised and they do not have the money to re-qualify. The BBC covered a lady working as a cleaner who was a qualified doctor in her home country.

By investing in Asylum seekers you take them off benefits, grow the economy and get people who are likely to work harder and pay more tax than the indigenous population.

Tip for next time - RTFQ 😉

 

[Stevo 666]

The ones from areas of French influence mostly stay in France. The ones from areas where English is the second language come to the UK. It's one of the consequences of having had an empire.

But those people are not coming here not because they are in danger, that is down to their preferences.

 

[Ian H]

But those people are not coming here not because they are in danger, that is down to their preferences.

They're escaping danger and finding somewhere with at least a familiar language.

 

[icowden]

But those people are not coming here not because they are in danger, that is down to their preferences.

Many Afghans prefer not to tortured or killed by the Taliban. Many Iraqis, Iranians and Syrians have strong opinions about being repressed, tortured and killed. Many Sudanese are finding the balmy atmosphere of a civil war non condusive to living if they get conscripted to fight. Same goes for the Eritreans.

The only migrants likely to be economic migrants are the small numbers of Vietnamese - and the govt is working with Vietnam to try and address that.

Anyway - why don't you enlighten us as to how you would stop the small boats?

 

[BoldonLad]

No, a failed Scottish shipyard saved from receivership by being awarded a rigged tender to build two ferries with a stupid specification devised by silly virtue signalling SNP politicians, couldn't build a ferry.

If that particular shipyard was told to build an arse, they'd have built an elbow for three times the cost and taken 10 years to do it.

I am familiar with the shipyard in question. It was struggling 30 years ago, and, it would appear, still is.

I am also familiar with the typical outcome of MOD warship contracts.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1930002565544194139?t=IsS4qVQBuxpXsMfjDfh9yw&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

Rachel from accounts has found some more money to spend

This time on trams, buses and trains outside of London

I thought she was skint with a 22bn black hole

 

[Psamathe]

Re: The Need For Radical Planning Changes.
Labour keep wittering on about how crucial it is for them to reduce scrutiny, reduce protections and ignore what little wildlife protections we have (given how devastated out wildlife is already).

Yet, their target is for 1.5 million homes by the end of the Parliament yet it now transpires there is currently planning permission already granted for 1.4 million homes.

Fast forward to 2025, and Labour has promised to build 1.5m new homes by the end of the parliament and is already behind schedule.
...
Last year there was an estimated shortfall of 2.5m homes, despite there being 1.4m plots already with planning permission. And while some local authorities have insisted that developers include parks and tree planting in their schemes, along with a high percentage of affordable homes, they complain that appeals by developers to the secretary of state for relief from these responsibilities are often successful.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lp-nature-survive-labours-housebuilding-plans)

So Labour's harping on about Planning and Wildlife being a blocking factor complete rubbish and they've just fallen sucker to lobbying from the developers who don't want to provide what society needs but what gives them highest profits and swells the value of their land banks.

We need and deserve better government that this.

Ian