Starmer's vision quest

[Rusty Nails]

I didn't spin it, I merely spinned it?

The word 'possible' is quite important, when taken in the context of your assertion "it sounds like Miliband is more powerful than Starmer.

Starmer hasn't got the bottle to sack Miliband and so Miliband stays in post despite the wishes of the leader".

I was offering a possible alternative to your spin.


Spin on that!

 

[icowden]

A desire to improve your life is a choice not a need.

Yes it is.

Fleeing persecution to a place of safety is a need. They are very different things

Agreed.

What has paying taxes got to do with it?

Ultimately the demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers reduces to "non-white people are coming over here to sponge off our benefits system". It's demonstrably untrue but stupid people keep sucking it up. There is ample evidence that migrants pay more tax into the economy per capita than the indigenous population. There is something about travelling to a new country to help your own families that really encourages people to work hard to make money. If money is being made, tax is being paid and the economy grows.

So it doesn't matter whether someone is fleeing war or just coming here to work because their is no work in their own country. It only becomes a problem when you have so much migration that there are no jobs for the indigenous population. We aren't in that position.

Seems like you are trying to shift the goal posts when you get an answer to your question that doesn't fit your agenda

Nope.

 

[spen666]

The word 'possible' is quite important, when taken in the context of your assertion "it sounds like Miliband is more powerful than Starmer.

Starmer hasn't got the bottle to sack Miliband and so Miliband stays in post despite the wishes of the leader".

I was offering a possible alternative to your spin.


Spin on that!

Absolutely you were by putting a spin on it.


Its hilarious you can't see that you are spinning a story whilst doing the same as me who you accuse of putting a spin on a story

 

[spen666]

Yes it is.

Agreed.

Ultimately the demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers reduces to "non-white people are coming over here to sponge off our benefits system". It's demonstrably untrue but stupid people keep sucking it up. There is ample evidence that migrants pay more tax into the economy per capita than the indigenous population. There is something about travelling to a new country to help your own families that really encourages people to work hard to make money. If money is being made, tax is being paid and the economy grows.

So it doesn't matter whether someone is fleeing war or just coming here to work because their is no work in their own country. It only becomes a problem when you have so much migration that there are no jobs for the indigenous population. We aren't in that position.


Nope.

All of which may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to whether someone is in need or not, which was you original point

 

[CXRAndy]

Jobseeker numbers increase at their fastest pace in 5 years. RFA policy and impending extra taxes have created a atmosphere of despondency, unwilling to invest in new staff and letting go others where they can

 

[CXRAndy]

The £7bn per year in hotel expenses for just the illegals is something the British public should not continue to support

 

[Bromptonaut]

The big question though is are they in need or simply economic migrants

Those two categories are not mutually exclusive. You can have a well founded fear of persecution and be an economic migrant.

 

[CXRAndy]

This is a conversation I hear in pubs too


View: https://x.com/EssexPR/status/1964837826778042499?t=_UUWRXW5iP4BWZhk6FuI9w&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

Reform is now the working class party


View: https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1964970049539608656?t=AsHEvJTV33yqmzwSijgJcw&s=19

 

[All uphill]

Those two categories are not mutually exclusive. You can have a well founded fear of persecution and be an economic migrant.

If people arrive here for solely economic reasons we have the right, and the machinery to remove them. So what's the problem?

Except that governments have preferred to warehouse people in hotels, for some purpose I don't understand.

 

[Pblakeney]

If people arrive here for solely economic reasons we have the right, and the machinery to remove them. So what's the problem?

Except that governments have preferred to warehouse people in hotels, for some purpose I don't understand.

Simple to understand.
There is insufficient staff to process all the claims. Put money into that instead of stupid schemes (Rwanda) and there will be little to no need for the hotels.
There is probably a need to look at the appeals process too.

 

[Psamathe]

If people arrive here for solely economic reasons we have the right, and the machinery to remove them. So what's the problem?

Except that governments have preferred to warehouse people in hotels, for some purpose I don't understand.

My understanding (and I don't have expertise) is that a person whose asylum claim is rejected can only be returned to a "Safe Country". There is a UK Gov. list of "Safe Countries" though it can still be subject to appeal through the courts. Then there seem some countries that are considered safe by UK that don't accept or don't accept many returned rejected asylum seekers (or maybe drag their feet and thus limit numbers).

Surprising fact I discovered the other day about UK Border Controls

After Brexit, EU nationals made up the majority of people refused entry at the UK border​

Around 23,000 people were refused entry to the UK in 2024, at ports of entry in the UK or juxtaposed controls in Belgium, France, or the Netherlands. Of these, 54% were EU nationals and 26% of the total were Romanian citizens.

 

[Psamathe]

We regularly comment on Trump's approval rating but an interesting comparison in today's Guardian

(from https://www.theguardian.com/politic...became-one-of-the-worst-in-the-west-in-charts)

 

[spen666]

My understanding (and I don't have expertise) is that a person whose asylum claim is rejected can only be returned to a "Safe Country". There is a UK Gov. list of "Safe Countries" though it can still be subject to appeal through the courts. Then there seem some countries that are considered safe by UK that don't accept or don't accept many returned rejected asylum seekers (or maybe drag their feet and thus limit numbers).

Surprising fact I discovered the other day about UK Border Controls

Without more information, its hard to express a view on that fact or the reasons behind it.

 

[icowden]

We regularly comment on Trump's approval rating but an interesting comparison in today's Guardian

Not unsurprising though. Trump is at the top because although over half of America loathes him, you won't find a Republican willing to admit that he's a terrible president.

For Starmer you'll find zero support from Reform or Conservative but also no support from Labour as he isn't carrying out what Labour voters would expect.