Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Just stop reading the Telegraph and try a proper news source. It will do wonders for your blood pressure.

As usual I'm interested in disproving the utter bollocks that you post.

The UK has not produced coking coal since 2015. Coking coal is needed for the steel blast furnaces in Sheffield. The Government is trying to keep these viable and convert them to electric furnaces. Buying coking coal is, therefore, a stopgap.

It would cost far more to reopen the last coking colliery and produce our own limited supply for a short period of time than to purchase the needed coal from Japan.

Not disagreeing with you, but, that may make the bean counters case, not the environmental case.

If environmental decisions were decided by bean counters standards, would we be drilling, fracking and mining as much as possible?

Not advocating that approach (for the avoidance of doubt).
 

All uphill

Well-Known Member
It's past time for all our (UK) politicians to stop the "illegal migrants" demonisation and start highlighting benefits.
Agreed.

We have a virtually limitless supply of young people who want to work, and successive governments telling us that is a bad thing.

Meanwhile our population grows older and we produce fewer children.

Laser focus on growth, my ar*e
 
Last edited:

matticus

Guru
I'm not sure getting people to apply from France would change things. You've obviously got more chance of remaining if you have already made it to the UK. If you've been refused asylum in the EU it's unlikely the UK would grant it if you're still managing to reside safely in France so there's still an incentive to cross the channel. Apart from which you'd be in a queue of thousands in France awaiting a decision rather than already here awaiting a decision. Plus the French government might view it as creating a further pull factor that encourages more people to come to France.

I thought the French agreed to set this up under the Tory government?
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Agreed.

We have a virtually limitless supply of young people who want to work, and successive governments telling us that is a bad thing.

Meanwhile our population grows older and we produce fewer children.

Laser focus on growth, my ar*e

With almost 10 million "economically in active" (not sure if that figure includes the Royal Family), and 1.5 million unemployed, could some of them not be a source of the fabled "growth", rather than "stealing" the (potential) workforce of other Countries?

Personally, I am not sure that "growth" is all that desirable, isn't there a climate crisis?, should we not be seeking to reduce consumption, rather than increase it?
 
I used to work for a research centre which specialised in migration with a focus on asylum and Refugees. There is probably no single political/social issue which is so badly misunderstood or tainted by myth/lies/misinformation.

As I am sure anyone on here knows there is no silver bullet but some practical solutions would be some of the following:

- Speed up the asylum process. The single biggest cost is housing people awaiting an asylum application decision, the hotel bill is around £3 billion per year. This is not due to massively increased asylum numbers but due to the Home Office ineptitude and failure to resource the asylum system adequately. As a side note, you can't process them in another country, our laws mean an asylum seekers has to be present in the country in which they are legally claiming asylum, plus who would agree to house and fund 200,000 people on our behalf?!

- Plan to turn 'political' migrants into economic migrants. Genuine asylum seekers are exactly that, genuine. They are fleeing war, persecution and general threat to life. The majority of UK asylum applicants are granted asylum, proving they are here on merited grounds. The problem becomes once they are granted asylum they are literally released into the community and are on their own. Spend money on training and preparing people for work whilst they are going through the lengthy asylum process (21 months on average). If they are able to go straight into work they are less likely to need public services/funding and can contribute economically from the off (which they want to do!).

- Allow asylum seekers that are able to work whilst they seek refugee status. As per point two, those that have good English and are able should be allowed to work, they can contribute significantly, and being able to work and stay economically and socially active reduces the need for other services such as healthcare.

- Create more safe routes. Contrary to the myth, we have a very low number of asylum seekers come to the UK, those that do nearly always have the intention of coming to the UK due to family/cultural/historic ties. We can create specific asylum routes and visas (look at the Ukraine system). That way you can create routes linked to the largest host countries (for the UK it is places like Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Eritrea). Do the ground work and allow people easier route and a quicker process. They are coming anyway, you may as well make it safe and as efficient (i.e cost effective as possible).

The biggest myths are that the UK is overrun by asylum seekers/refugees (we aren't), that they arrive by small boats (the majority don't) and that they take our jobs and drain our services (again, not so much). You cannot stop people claiming asylum, it is a legal right and deterrence does not work, costs more and just creates social division. Instead, you can have a fair and efficient system in place, educate the local population about the realities and the benefits, and help those granted refugee status to become economic and social contributors.

Long winded post, but hopefully worthwhile!
 

All uphill

Well-Known Member
With almost 10 million "economically in active" (not sure if that figure includes the Royal Family), and 1.5 million unemployed, could some of them not be a source of the fabled "growth", rather than "stealing" the (potential) workforce of other Countries?

Personally, I am not sure that "growth" is all that desirable, isn't there a climate crisis?, should we not be seeking to reduce consumption, rather than increase it?

Oi! Are you suggesting I should go back to work?

Just because I can do voluntary work, cycle a load of miles and have knowledge and experience doesn't mean I'm fit to work.

I've got an arthritic big toe, I'll have you know!
 

Pblakeney

Regular
With almost 10 million "economically inactive" (not sure if that figure includes the Royal Family), and 1.5 million unemployed, could some of them not be a source of the fabled "growth", rather than "stealing" the (potential) workforce of other Countries?

I've considered your proposal and rejected it out of hand in a nano second. 😉
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
I still don't think I have a chip...

Oi! Are you suggesting I should go back to work?

Just because I can do voluntary work, cycle a load of miles and have knowledge and experience doesn't mean I'm fit to work.

I've got an arthritic big toe, I'll have you know!

Not sure you would qualify any way, the 10 million are aged between 16 and 64.
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
0edivdkknk3b1.jpg
 
Top Bottom