The Rwanda policy just reinforces negative views of the Tories – politicalbetting.com

System

The Rwanda policy just reinforces negative views of the Tories – politicalbetting.com

Fiona Bruce repeatedly asks if ANYONE in the Conservative majority audience supports the Rwanda plan, no one puts their hand up.Helen Whately then gives her second car crash monologue of the evening #BBCQT pic.twitter.com/SsAVuAE8oP

Read the full story here

WillG

Is apparently just living in Rwanda supposed to be a fate worse than death now? How damn disrespectful of the 13 million Rwandans.

Casino_Royale

Not the hands up thing again. That's just an exercise in social proof.

If it were working you'd get a different response but audience members will think they'd be asked to defend a Government policy failure.

JosiasJessop

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here.

As far as I can tell, Labour's plan will take years to come to fruition, and will do nothing about current arrivals.

Nigelb

Casino_Royale said:

Not the hands up thing again. That's just an exercise in social proof.

If it were working you'd get a different response but audience members will think they'd be asked to defend a Government policy failure.

Only 23% of those polled, just before this decision, think it very likely or fairly likely that anyone will be deported under this plan.

The government is spending three billion a year detaining immigrant, in a state if enforced economic idleness.

So yes, they were being asked whether they would defend a moral and practical utter failure. That's the point.

DecrepiterJohnL

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

DecrepiterJohnL

WillG said:

Is apparently just living in Rwanda supposed to be a fate worse than death now? How damn disrespectful of the 13 million Rwandans.

Worse than living in Britain but better than death, perhaps?

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here.

As far as I can tell, Labour's plan will take years to come to fruition, and will do nothing about current arrivals.

And how is the government's plan working?

Nigelb

JosiasJessop said:

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here...

Wise words to direct at the government, too.

DecrepiterJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

Not the hands up thing again. That's just an exercise in social proof.

If it were working you'd get a different response but audience members will think they'd be asked to defend a Government policy failure.

It is not really clear what you are saying here. You say that if the policy were working, the audience would support it but since it is failing, the audience does not support it. Sounds reasonable except that you opened by writing the whole thing off as "an exercise in social proof".

DecrepiterJohnL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

It will be an added bonus if foreign countries do not recruit our ex-apprentice or fast-track doctors because they no longer recognise British qualifications.

Alanbrooke

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

It will be an added bonus if foreign countries do not recruit our ex-apprentice or fast-track doctors because they no longer recognise British qualifications.

well that would of course stop them going to Australia and mean the NHS doesn`t have a manning problem

DecrepiterJohnL

On the subject of health, is there any betting on the Speaker's blood pressure after the government has yet again made a major policy announcement via Fleet Street rather than in the Commons?

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here.

As far as I can tell, Labour's plan will take years to come to fruition, and will do nothing about current arrivals.

And how is the government's plan working?

That's unclear, at best. As the charts shown yesterday show, there has been a massive increase in numbers coming over since 2019, for some reason(s). Policies take time to take effect, and perhaps without government policies the numbers would be much higher. Perhaps...

However, at least their plan seems more solid than Labour's, which appears somewhat wishy-washy. The problem is that it is an incredibly difficult issue due to its international nature, and the fact that no Eu country really wants these people to come in via illegal routes.

But both the government's and Labour's plan appear to be somewhat at the "steal underpants" stage. It's an incredibly difficult issue; but one that if not addressed, could lead to really negative effects on the country. We saw how the relatively minor issue of the EU led to the rise of UKIP. Failure to tackle illegal immigration may lead to the same, or much worse.

StillWaters

Casino_Royale said:

Not the hands up thing again. That's just an exercise in social proof.

If it were working you'd get a different response but audience members will think they'd be asked to defend a Government policy failure.

Worse than that - clips of them doing so will go viral on Twitter., they will be called racist and probably sacked.

pigeon

1/ The gap between the politicians' rhetoric and reality on irregular migration is so vast because it stems from their fundamental dishonesty - the unwillingness and inability to tell difficult truths, rather than to lie and dissemble. Nobody in the mainstream parties wants to tell the electorate that we are virtually powerless to stop an unlimited number of people from poor countries getting here in the dinghies and successfully claiming asylum, because they are afraid of looking weak, and believe that truth-telling on their part will simply lead to bolshie voters going off in a huff to their immediate rivals, who persist in peddling nonsense, or to insurgent far-right parties.

Britain is not a despotism, and the Government's hands are tied by a complex structure of moral and legal (both domestic and international) obligations that leave it almost powerless to act. There is nothing in human rights legislation or the UN convention on refugees that places any limit on the number of applicants that a country is obliged to consider, so we can't simply reject arrivals because there are more of them coming than the resident population feels either willing or able to accept for starters.

We can't expect the French to bail us out by stopping the boats from leaving to begin with, firstly because it's impractical for them to mount a cast iron, round the clock defence of their entire coastline against small groups of people trying to launch from beaches in dinghies, and secondly because they receive more asylum applications than we do and they don't really want to be stuck with our unwanted migrants as well as their own. Pushback is a complete non-starter as a strategy, again because the French don't want the migrants back, and because they'll just fall or jump into the sea from their flimsy rafts during any confrontation and the ship sent to repel them will then be obliged to pick them up anyway.

Once the boat people are here then there are no legal options for sending them anywhere outside of our own jurisdiction to deal with them. It matters not how much pious cant is uttered about making people claim asylum in the first safe country they enter - if that principle actually meant anything then there's be a pass-the-parcel of sealed trains shunting all these people back through Europe to the Mediterranean countries, which would be jam packed full of refugee camps and in a state of revolt. Offshoring to a supposedly safe third country has now been shown not to work, because the only kinds of places we can find to accept refugees in this way - essentially, relieving the UK of its own unwanted arrivals in exchange for fat bribes - are quasi-dictatorships like Rwanda with highly questionable human rights records, which simply means that the judges won't entertain deportations to them. And, critically, once people start making their claims here, the large bulk of them are going to be allowed to stay, for various reasons.

pigeon

2/ Many of the applicants have genuine grounds for seeking asylum, through demonstrable fear of persecution and injustice, and sometimes through ties of immediate family already resident here. Many others are economic migrants, but it hardly matters that "seeking a better life" doesn't constitute legal grounds for refugee status: if they tell a sufficiently convincing tale then it's going to be near-impossible for a paper-shuffler in Croydon to find the evidence to disprove it. And then there's the not-so-small matter in a lot of cases of how you dispose even of applicants that haven't managed to persuade the Home Office or the courts to rule in their favour. Some countries won't take their own people back full stop if they elect to abscond; others will only do so if the rejects have their identity documents, which they've typically destroyed.

It's usually at this stage in any counsel of despair on the matter that some bright spark comes along and attempts to assert the principle of Parliamentary absolutism. The law of the land is whatever Parliament says it is. We can simply pass a law stating that all the boat people are personae not grata and not entitled to claim asylum, lock them up in some kind of internment camp (possibly a massive oubliette constructed in the Falklands,) and leave them there until they either die or give up and plead to be sent somewhere else. This also doesn't work, on several levels. It means saying that, because we don't want the ballache of dealing with asylum seekers, we're going to rip up all our international obligations with respect to refugees specifically, and human rights more generally, so that we can treat these people as a different, inferior category of human being to everyone else. It entails brutalizing them (and once we do that to them, why not start stripping the rights of other unfavoured groups? It'd probably start with criminals, but that almost certainly wouldn't be the end of it.) It also entails severing the United Kingdom from its network of international obligations and turning it into a pariah. And the act of abrogating the ECHR would blow up the entire architecture of our relationship with our neighbours, undermining the Belfast Agreement, the TCA with the EU, and infuriating Washington in the process. And yes, I know the Australians managed to "stop the boats," but they had to deal with many fewer arrivals coming in actual ships rather than dinghies, had a much wider moat, and when they started offshoring they weren't obliged to sneak the wheeze past Strasbourg.

Ghedebrav

Regardless of your feelings about asylum and immigration (and setting aside empathy and moral positions) the Rwanda idea is fairly obviously an expensive, impractical and ineffective solution. It only really takes a five minutes consideration to realise that.

But this stupid government has made it such a shibboleth of their migration policy that they will pursue it at all costs. I wouldn’t remind betting that it’s this aspect that makes it so unpopular with Tories and people in general who want to control migration - the fact that it doesn’t work, and distracts from actual productive efforts.

pigeon

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

JosiasJessop

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

"Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future."

*If* that is true, then it leads to two things:
1) More attempts to stop them stepping foot in the country; i.e. more boats sinking and tragedies.
2) Increased social division. It's all very well saying "a sufficiency of decent accommodation"; the truth is that we have a brilliant country that vast numbers of people around the world want to come to. How many new houses can we build to support them, can we build them, and should we build them?

Any honest discussion about irregular migration should therefore ask how many migrants the country can cope with, without causing fiscal and social problems - and then how we limit it to those numbers.

Fishing

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The trouble with that argument is that once we become a soft touch, word will rapidly get out and the number of arrivals will soar from even their current high levels. None of us can blame the illegals for doing what they're doing, but that level of arrivals would not be politically acceptable, and could lead to a credible, extreme right FN or AfD-style party in this country for the first time.

Taz

I don't think this issue will really harm the tories in the blue wall. I dont think it will move many voters, rather like woke issues.

The economy and the cost of living crisis will be the main issues that motivate people to vote. People's wages and standard of living has stagnated. That will motivate people to vote and, rather like with the Brexit vote, if the party that is not the status quo is offering what people see as a credible, viable, alternative that will improve their lot in life they will go for it.

As for the show of hands on TV, so what. Means nothing. There is plenty of polling data which shows what people really think about this policy. A show of hands on a TV show means nothing.

Heathener

Taz said:

I don't think this issue will really harm the tories in the blue wall. I dont think it will move many voters, rather like woke issues.

The economy and the cost of living crisis will be the main issues that motivate people to vote. [...]

Not often I find myself in agreement with you but you're right.

I know people in the blue wall, tory voters, who dislike this policy but it's not what will decide their vote.

The bigger hit to the tories overnight is the news that the lending banks have, again, raised their mortgage interest rates. This, and close-to-home cost of living issues are the killer to the tories.

Heathener

Meanwhile with the latest YouGov the mean national vote lead for Labour over the last 8 polls is: 20.5%

SirNorfolkPassmore

WillG said:

Is apparently just living in Rwanda supposed to be a fate worse than death now? How damn disrespectful of the 13 million Rwandans.

That was categorically NOT the judgment made by the Court of Appeal. Their decision was based on the record of the Rwandan Governnment of forcibly returning asylum seekers to conflict zones such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

It was not based on the standard of living for a person living in Rwanda.

If you're going to comment on this, you do have a responsibility to do so based on the actual content of the judgment.

Foxy

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here.

As far as I can tell, Labour's plan will take years to come to fruition, and will do nothing about current arrivals.

And how is the government's plan working?

That's unclear, at best. As the charts shown yesterday show, there has been a massive increase in numbers coming over since 2019, for some reason(s). Policies take time to take effect, and perhaps without government policies the numbers would be much higher. Perhaps...

However, at least their plan seems more solid than Labour's, which appears somewhat wishy-washy. The problem is that it is an incredibly difficult issue due to its international nature, and the fact that no Eu country really wants these people to come in via illegal routes.

But both the government's and Labour's plan appear to be somewhat at the "steal underpants" stage. It's an incredibly difficult issue; but one that if not addressed, could lead to really negative effects on the country. We saw how the relatively minor issue of the EU led to the rise of UKIP. Failure to tackle illegal immigration may lead to the same, or much worse.

While asylum claims by boat are up, overall asylum claims haven't gone up by much, and are half of what they were 20 years ago. It is the means of arrival that has changed rather than the numbers:

https://public.tableau.com/views/Asylum2022/2?:language=en-US&:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share

Small boat arrivals only really started when port security tightened on the lorry parks.

Heathener

There might of course be a Bradley effect in this show of hands.

You have to be pretty iron-willed to put your hand up on national television to declare that you're a nasty right-wing xenophobe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Foxy

Heathener said:

There might of course be a Bradley effect in this show of hands.

You have to be pretty iron-willed to put your hand up on national television to declare that you're a nasty right-wing xenophobe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Only really applies to face to face or phone polls surely. Certainly plenty of people willing to be beastly online and Internet.

noneoftheabove

Govt introduces new law it says it openly says is likely to be illegal (less than 2 years after previous failed bill on same topic)
Vast majority of lawyers agree it is illegal
Court says it is illegal
Govt appeals
Govt burning through cash and credibility defending the policy

I wonder why the govt is unpopular.

Foxy

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The trouble with that argument is that once we become a soft touch, word will rapidly get out and the number of arrivals will soar from even their current high levels. None of us can blame the illegals for doing what they're doing, but that level of arrivals would not be politically acceptable, and could lead to a credible, extreme right FN or AfD-style party in this country for the first time.

It is not illegal to claim asylum.

We could withdraw from the convention on asylum and make it illegal if we wanted, but we haven't.

The government's Rwanda policy tries to make it illegal while not grasping the nettle. Which is one of several reasons that it isn't working. There is no legal way to claim asylum without entering the country first.

Malmesbury

DecrepiterJohnL said:

WillG said:

Is apparently just living in Rwanda supposed to be a fate worse than death now? How damn disrespectful of the 13 million Rwandans.

Worse than living in Britain but better than death, perhaps?

A human rights group once argued, in court, that sending refugees to live in Edinburgh was against their human rights.

Foxy

Dr Rosena is very good indeed:

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674544007001636864?t=Cp04c3spJPjfXymLpj-Z6Q&s=19

DecrepiterJohnL

Foxy said:

Dr Rosena is very good indeed:

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674544007001636864?t=Cp04c3spJPjfXymLpj-Z6Q&s=19

I cannot read it. It looks as if, overnight, Elon has blocked reading tweets without signing in.

Malmesbury

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The small problem with the nice idea of an efficiently open border - which is what you are advocating - if that the number of people who want to come here exceeds the capacity of the country to absorb them.

The numbers would simply increase to the point for percentage points of the population per year.

So what to do? The reason that many are coming here is a mix of economic and political reasons. With an emphasis of economic. This is why they don’t want to stay in France.

It is fairly simple to demand that employers are legally responsible for the status of their employers. In fact they are, already. Just add bigger fines. And the touch that half the fine goes to the person giving evidence against the employer. And any illegal immigrant gets indefinite leave to remain on conviction of the employer.

So, instead of shipping people to Rwanda, offer them a huge pile of money and papers to give evidence against those who are usually exploiting them. Better yet, this will result in a wave of private prosecutions - no government effort required.

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

bondegezou

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

I fear it's quite simple: if you want the boat people to be able to come over here to live, say so at the ballot box.

Otherwise, give us a plan that will enable them to be prevented from coming over, and deal with ones who are already here.

As far as I can tell, Labour's plan will take years to come to fruition, and will do nothing about current arrivals.

And how is the government's plan working?

That's unclear, at best. As the charts shown yesterday show, there has been a massive increase in numbers coming over since 2019, for some reason(s). Policies take time to take effect, and perhaps without government policies the numbers would be much higher. Perhaps...

However, at least their plan seems more solid than Labour's, which appears somewhat wishy-washy. The problem is that it is an incredibly difficult issue due to its international nature, and the fact that no Eu country really wants these people to come in via illegal routes.

But both the government's and Labour's plan appear to be somewhat at the "steal underpants" stage. It's an incredibly difficult issue; but one that if not addressed, could lead to really negative effects on the country. We saw how the relatively minor issue of the EU led to the rise of UKIP. Failure to tackle illegal immigration may lead to the same, or much worse.

While asylum claims by boat are up, overall asylum claims haven't gone up by much, and are half of what they were 20 years ago. It is the means of arrival that has changed rather than the numbers:

https://public.tableau.com/views/Asylum2022/2?:language=en-US&:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share

Small boat arrivals only really started when port security tightened on the lorry parks.

Indeed. All this talk of a “tide” of illegal immigrants is, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, divisive rhetoric. People coming over on boats is a small proportion of the total number of immigrants to this country. If the UK is at risk of being swamped, why does the UK government, having taken back control, allowing such high rates of legal immigration?

If the Rwanda scheme does happen, it will take no more than 100 people a year, so the risk of being sent to Rwanda will be small, providing no deterrent effect. What will provide a better deterrent effect is spending the same money on processing asylum claims, so that those who don’t have a valid asylum claim can be deported promptly, and those who do can transition to a new life where they allowed to work and give back to the community.

The number of Albanians coming over on boats has been successfully reduced by a large amount. A rare success for the Government. What worked there was a specific deal with the Albanian government. We should work on more deals like that. We need better relations with France and the rest of the EU; the loss of the Dublin arrangement having a big effect here.

And what about some good, old-fashioned policing work, in cooperation with the French, to arrest people smugglers?

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

Well, it’s either continue as we are, or expand staff numbers.

I would bet money that the next government (Labour) will abolish this scheme. And replace it with something so similar that you won’t be able to the difference.

algarkirk

A moment's thought tells you there is no solution within the current constraints. But the right answer is obvious.

There must be at least two billion people with an arguable and good case for asylum in the free world, if they wanted to and can find a way to get to such a place. Many of course also want a better life in economic terms as well as having a refugee claim.

Compared with Uganda, Chad, Turkey and Bangladesh our refugee numbers are tiny.

We have net lawful migration each year with record numbers arriving.

We are short of strawberry pickers and all the other jobs our WFH HR coordinators and compliance box tickers don't want to do.

Most of those with the wit to get here on a lilo/raft have strong drive and motivation.

Answer: Act to keep the numbers lower than infinite but let them in on condition they do the jobs we need.

eek

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

I think the theory is that people will learn by osmosis because they will be in the same room as you as you deal with even more patients because given there are now two doctors in the room you can deal with twice as many patients.

bondegezou

JosiasJessop said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

"Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future."

*If* that is true, then it leads to two things:
1) More attempts to stop them stepping foot in the country; i.e. more boats sinking and tragedies.
2) Increased social division. It's all very well saying "a sufficiency of decent accommodation"; the truth is that we have a brilliant country that vast numbers of people around the world want to come to. How many new houses can we build to support them, can we build them, and should we build them?

Any honest discussion about irregular migration should therefore ask how many migrants the country can cope with, without causing fiscal and social problems - and then how we limit it to those numbers.

Under current government policies, regular (legal) migration is high (606,000), and much higher than irregular migration. Clearly, No. 10 thinks the UK can cope with a large number of migrants without causing fiscal and social problems. You, of course, are free to have a different opinion on that, although I presume you won’t be voting Conservative if you do.

OldBasing

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

bondegezou

Taz said:

I don't think this issue will really harm the tories in the blue wall. I dont think it will move many voters, rather like woke issues.

The economy and the cost of living crisis will be the main issues that motivate people to vote. People's wages and standard of living has stagnated. That will motivate people to vote and, rather like with the Brexit vote, if the party that is not the status quo is offering what people see as a credible, viable, alternative that will improve their lot in life they will go for it.

As for the show of hands on TV, so what. Means nothing. There is plenty of polling data which shows what people really think about this policy. A show of hands on a TV show means nothing.

Issues polling has the economy #1 and health #2. Don’t overlook the performance of the NHS as an election issue! Immigration is, however, at #3, although the polling I’ve seen does not break down whether that’s about small boats or total immigration numbers or something else.

dixiedean

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

This'll be as successful as Zahawi's "army of supply teachers."

RochdalePioneers

There was some partisan bickering earlier about whose proposed plan was worst / not working etc.

That isn't the issue. Yes its clear that the Tory plan does not work as they continue to pour across the channel. But if it *did* work, I dont think we would see support for it either.

There is a fundamental gap between the small number of pro-gollywog voters the government think represents the majority of voters, and the actual moral majority of voters. The government have tried to "other" various groups, describing them in proto-nazi language and then treating them in various inhumane and illegal ways.

The majority of British people are not the amoral cold-hearted shits that Braverman etc wants them to be. And even the ones who voted Tory last time have seen through to the crux of the mater and are sickened by it.

Why does this matter? Because the Tory election plan is to go hyper-negative. That's all they have left. But dog-whistle politics written with Braverman's crayon only work if there are actual dogs to listen to it.

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

Well, it’s either continue as we are, or expand staff numbers.

I would bet money that the next government (Labour) will abolish this scheme. And replace it with something so similar that you won’t be able to the difference.

I have no problem with the scheme, just that the government hasn't really considered how to implement it, or discussed it with the medical schools.

Incidentally my medical school is putting places into clearing for the first time this year, so it seems the pool of good applicants is not inexhaustible.

What could possibly be putting people off a career in medicine in the UK at present?

DougSeal

Malmesbury said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The small problem with the nice idea of an efficiently open border - which is what you are advocating - if that the number of people who want to come here exceeds the capacity of the country to absorb them.

The numbers would simply increase to the point for percentage points of the population per year.

So what to do? The reason that many are coming here is a mix of economic and political reasons. With an emphasis of economic. This is why they don’t want to stay in France.

It is fairly simple to demand that employers are legally responsible for the status of their employers. In fact they are, already. Just add bigger fines. And the touch that half the fine goes to the person giving evidence against the employer. And any illegal immigrant gets indefinite leave to remain on conviction of the employer.

So, instead of shipping people to Rwanda, offer them a huge pile of money and papers to give evidence against those who are usually exploiting them. Better yet, this will result in a wave of private prosecutions - no government effort required.

So, you’re suggesting a significant material reward for someone who gives a specific type of evidence in litigation. I sense a flaw in that approach…

Carnyx

eek said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

I think the theory is that people will learn by osmosis because they will be in the same room as you as you deal with even more patients because given there are now two doctors in the room you can deal with twice as many patients.

Indeed to both of you. The last but one time I had a GP consultation there was a trainee (with my agreement requested and given). It took at least twice as long as usual for that reason, and rightly so.

RochdalePioneers

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The trouble with that argument is that once we become a soft touch, word will rapidly get out and the number of arrivals will soar from even their current high levels. None of us can blame the illegals for doing what they're doing, but that level of arrivals would not be politically acceptable, and could lead to a credible, extreme right FN or AfD-style party in this country for the first time.

In reality we do not have "high levels". We take a mere fraction of those suffered by our neighbours.

What is needed is an international effort. The kind cut off by Boris! in his Brexity zeal.

Taz

dixiedean said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

This'll be as successful as Zahawi's "army of supply teachers."

No, I think this has a chance of succeeding. Zahawi's plan didn't.

A recruitment drive, increased training, increasing the quantity of people going through training. All seems to make sense as this is looking to increase the supply of staff through increased quantities of people going through training.

They should also offer to write off a portion of the training/degree costs trainees will be expected to reimburse for each year they are in the NHS.

bondegezou

.

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

The problem is trying to do a big increase in training numbers overnight when what we needed was a slower increase over several years. But Sunak can only work with what he’s got, where we are now. He can’t be blamed for the failings of previous governments on this. It’s not like his party has been in power since 2010. He wasn’t a senior government minister for many years.

What’s that? He was and they were?

JosiasJessop

bondegezou said:

JosiasJessop said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

"Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future."

*If* that is true, then it leads to two things:
1) More attempts to stop them stepping foot in the country; i.e. more boats sinking and tragedies.
2) Increased social division. It's all very well saying "a sufficiency of decent accommodation"; the truth is that we have a brilliant country that vast numbers of people around the world want to come to. How many new houses can we build to support them, can we build them, and should we build them?

Any honest discussion about irregular migration should therefore ask how many migrants the country can cope with, without causing fiscal and social problems - and then how we limit it to those numbers.

Under current government policies, regular (legal) migration is high (606,000), and much higher than irregular migration. Clearly, No. 10 thinks the UK can cope with a large number of migrants without causing fiscal and social problems. You, of course, are free to have a different opinion on that, although I presume you won’t be voting Conservative if you do.

I won't be voting Conservative, but not for that reason. There are, after all, a myriad of wonderful reasons not to vote for the current iteration of the Conservative Party.

Taz

OldBasing said:

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

The govt has made five pledges, including stop the boats, and they will struggle with most of them. They are all hostages to fortune.

The issue with the boats is more fundamental than a few asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants rocking up and expecting a new life. It shows the govt is incapable of protecting our borders.

I suspect France and Belgium are more than happy to see these people head over the channel to the UK as they have their own issues with various groups of wilfully and non wilfully displaced persons.

When it comes to an electoral reckoning it will be just another in a long line of failures or failed initiatives from this govt.

bondegezou

JosiasJessop said:

bondegezou said:

JosiasJessop said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

"Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future."

*If* that is true, then it leads to two things:
1) More attempts to stop them stepping foot in the country; i.e. more boats sinking and tragedies.
2) Increased social division. It's all very well saying "a sufficiency of decent accommodation"; the truth is that we have a brilliant country that vast numbers of people around the world want to come to. How many new houses can we build to support them, can we build them, and should we build them?

Any honest discussion about irregular migration should therefore ask how many migrants the country can cope with, without causing fiscal and social problems - and then how we limit it to those numbers.

Under current government policies, regular (legal) migration is high (606,000), and much higher than irregular migration. Clearly, No. 10 thinks the UK can cope with a large number of migrants without causing fiscal and social problems. You, of course, are free to have a different opinion on that, although I presume you won’t be voting Conservative if you do.

I won't be voting Conservative, but not for that reason. There are, after all, a myriad of wonderful reasons not to vote for the current iteration of the Conservative Party.

Immigration has been fairly high under every iteration of the Conservative Party since 2010. (I lose count of how many iterations there have been.)

OnlyLivingBoy

OldBasing said:

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

My sense has always been that becoming the sort of country that won't let anyone in would change us in more profound and negative ways than letting them in.

HYUFD

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

Taz

bondegezou said:

Taz said:

I don't think this issue will really harm the tories in the blue wall. I dont think it will move many voters, rather like woke issues.

The economy and the cost of living crisis will be the main issues that motivate people to vote. People's wages and standard of living has stagnated. That will motivate people to vote and, rather like with the Brexit vote, if the party that is not the status quo is offering what people see as a credible, viable, alternative that will improve their lot in life they will go for it.

As for the show of hands on TV, so what. Means nothing. There is plenty of polling data which shows what people really think about this policy. A show of hands on a TV show means nothing.

Issues polling has the economy #1 and health #2. Don’t overlook the performance of the NHS as an election issue! Immigration is, however, at #3, although the polling I’ve seen does not break down whether that’s about small boats or total immigration numbers or something else.

Net inward migration is as high as it ever has been and yet people in this nation, who many (including a few here) would have you believe we are a nation of Tommy Robinson style little Englanders, are very comfortable with it.

Immigration may mean a variety of things. There will be some who do not think we have enough inward migration like former Chancellor Phillip Hammond. There will be some who think we should just accept anyone who comes across as a refugee/migrant, and there will be people whose concern is integration and infrastructure to support the large quantities of net inward migration.

It certainly won;t be the case that everyone who has a concern about immigration is against it.

OldBasing

Taz said:

OldBasing said:

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

The govt has made five pledges, including stop the boats, and they will struggle with most of them. They are all hostages to fortune.

The issue with the boats is more fundamental than a few asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants rocking up and expecting a new life. It shows the govt is incapable of protecting our borders.

I suspect France and Belgium are more than happy to see these people head over the channel to the UK as they have their own issues with various groups of wilfully and non wilfully displaced persons.

When it comes to an electoral reckoning it will be just another in a long line of failures or failed initiatives from this govt.

Yes, simple slogan like 'stop the boats' don't actually work for complex areas of policy where a large part of the problem sits outside of the UK's control to fix. It was a daft pledge to make, but then Sunak is not very good at politics - he's an over-promoted empty suit.

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

Unpopular with Remainders apologies

Malmesbury

DougSeal said:

Malmesbury said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The small problem with the nice idea of an efficiently open border - which is what you are advocating - if that the number of people who want to come here exceeds the capacity of the country to absorb them.

The numbers would simply increase to the point for percentage points of the population per year.

So what to do? The reason that many are coming here is a mix of economic and political reasons. With an emphasis of economic. This is why they don’t want to stay in France.

It is fairly simple to demand that employers are legally responsible for the status of their employers. In fact they are, already. Just add bigger fines. And the touch that half the fine goes to the person giving evidence against the employer. And any illegal immigrant gets indefinite leave to remain on conviction of the employer.

So, instead of shipping people to Rwanda, offer them a huge pile of money and papers to give evidence against those who are usually exploiting them. Better yet, this will result in a wave of private prosecutions - no government effort required.

So, you’re suggesting a significant material reward for someone who gives a specific type of evidence in litigation. I sense a flaw in that approach…

Yup - you’d need to make sure they aren’t lying. But people have given critical evidence with rewards before.

In addition the physical evidence of employment will be fairly easy to find, once the case is brought. So the conviction would not, probably, rely on their testimony alone.

In every job I have worked in, the employer has asked for a photocopy of my passport. A relative who runs a building business does similar for the people he employs. Cast iron protection against the existing laws on employing the undocumented

OnlyLivingBoy

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

But the government policy goes beyond processing claims in Rwanda. The policy is to settle those whose claims are accepted there too, isn't it? Does that enjoy the same breadth of support?

RochdalePioneers

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

Question Time last night was your electorate. Majority 2019 Tory voters. And they do not like the policy.

Taz

OldBasing said:

Taz said:

OldBasing said:

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

The govt has made five pledges, including stop the boats, and they will struggle with most of them. They are all hostages to fortune.

The issue with the boats is more fundamental than a few asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants rocking up and expecting a new life. It shows the govt is incapable of protecting our borders.

I suspect France and Belgium are more than happy to see these people head over the channel to the UK as they have their own issues with various groups of wilfully and non wilfully displaced persons.

When it comes to an electoral reckoning it will be just another in a long line of failures or failed initiatives from this govt.

Yes, simple slogan like 'stop the boats' don't actually work for complex areas of policy where a large part of the problem sits outside of the UK's control to fix. It was a daft pledge to make, but then Sunak is not very good at politics - he's an over-promoted empty suit.

I think that is absolutely correct. He clearly is not very good at politics. He may have been misquoted last weekend but his "not lose our nerve" comment came over very badly.

His vast wealth is an issue. It shouldn't be but it is an issue. We live in an era of cheap politics and cheap politicians.

Also coming this winter. Power cuts. It has passed under the radar but the owners of two coal power stations, who were asked to keep them on line as a back up for this winter, have refused and the decommissioning will continue. This will simply make the risk of power cuts this winter, especially if we have another cold snap where the wind does not blow like we did last December, even greater.

Although this will be the cumulative fault of inept energy policy going back 25 or 30 years and covering multiple govts it will be on his watch and he will get the blame.

Theuniondivvie

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things for which they devoutly wished and voted are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

RochdalePioneers

I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.

Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"

We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.

Stuartinromford

OldBasing said:

I don't think it is actually possible to stop the boats. This is where the politicians are not being honest. We're reliant on France & Belgium to patrol their coastlines 24/7 and that's a lot resource needed. We don't actually have the detention space in the UK to detain migrants even if you wanted to enforce mass deportations of arrivals. Because the migrants know they will be bailed on arrival, this is even more of a draw to cross the Channel.

We can't send them back to France or Belgium because we have no returns agreement. We can't send them to their countries of origin because we don't actually know who they are and they have no documents to prove it. The countries they have come from don't want them anyway. The UK is at the end of a very long international migration chain that stretches back across Europe into Africa and the Middle East - unless the UK has a cunning plan to solve the factors that drive this migration, then people will keep coming.

The Government is basically pissing into the global winds of choas enveloping the world and I think the public has clocked that.

Trouble is that the only way to Fully Take Control is for a nation to become so hermetically sealed and internally controlled as to be an unpleasant place to live. (We don't for example, know how many people came to the UK on a legit visa and just forgot to leave. That being fundamentally unknowable.)

I wonder if what has happened is the government losing the benefit of the doubt on everything. When the Rwanda plan was launched, the split was roughly equal between "this is awful" and "it's worth a try". But if the government can't make anything work in any area, you're left with just the theatrical performance, and who wants to be associated with that?

I get the dislike of ID cards, but many of our current problems follow from the lack of a single, consistent proof of identity and residency that everyone has.

Malmesbury

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The trouble with that argument is that once we become a soft touch, word will rapidly get out and the number of arrivals will soar from even their current high levels. None of us can blame the illegals for doing what they're doing, but that level of arrivals would not be politically acceptable, and could lead to a credible, extreme right FN or AfD-style party in this country for the first time.

In reality we do not have "high levels". We take a mere fraction of those suffered by our neighbours.

What is needed is an international effort. The kind cut off by Boris! in his Brexity zeal.

We have low levels of asylum seekers.

We have higher numbers of immigrants of other - denominations? Economic, family etc.

The thing is, that being an economic or asylum migrant is a continuum. Not a binary choice. Most are a mix of both.

My wife came to the U.K. as an economic migrant. Though a portion of her decision was based on the civil war in her country.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Edit: reference here. Note that the upset MP was a *Tory* one.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/is-question-time-s-audience-producer-really-fascist/

Malmesbury

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Earlier than that.

Back when Cameron was leader, he used to do a thing called Cameron Direct. He would show up at a factory, office, hospitals etc. and get questioned by the assembled staff. Open mike and no editing. The audience (and questioners) were the people who worked there. The whole thing was videoed and put online.

The BBC and other broadcasters refused to show it. Because they wanted control - to “salt” the audience with activists to stir controversy, plant questions and generally make it fake.

Carnyx

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Earlier than that.

Back when Cameron was leader, he used to do a thing called Cameron Direct. He would show up at a factory, office, hospitals etc. and get questioned by the assembled staff. Open mike and no editing. The audience (and questioners) were the people who worked there. The whole thing was videoed and put online.

The BBC and other broadcasters refused to show it. Because they wanted control - to “salt” the audience with activists to stir controversy, plant questions and generally make it fake.

Would be the same sort of timing, actually, as I understand it.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

To be fair, this is not a short term policy, and presumably the idea is to gradually bring in the change to more hands on training as numbers recruited increase ?

The £10bn saving quoted is over a number of years, so while less significant than the headline suggests, somewhat more realistic.

As you say, it's not simple, but they are at least pointing in the right direction with this ?

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Their selection criteria for QT audiences seems remarkably elastic, eg the recent Brexit anniversary special where all the audience had voted to leave. I think Bruce said that last night’s show represented the 2019 ge, that is a plurality of Con voters. It’s a poor show (so to speak) when there’s not a single aspiring Tory councillor with a Suella Braverman tattoo in the audience pretending to be a concerned member of the public.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

Yougov have polled much more recently than that, as noted upthread. The policy is not a net positive for you - however much it might please your diehard core voters.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Their selection criteria for QT audiences seems remarkably elastic, eg the recent Brexit anniversary special where all the audience had voted to leave. I think Bruce said that last night’s show represented the 2019 ge, that is a plurality of Con voters. It’s a poor show (so to speak) when there’s not a single aspiring Tory councillor with a Suella Braverman tattoo in the audience pretending to be a concerned member of the public.

Oh yes, and for Scottish episodes the same chap accidentally on purpose in the audience in 3 or 4 shows in a row. That was a rather good one. I seem to recall he was helpfully wearing an orange jumper as well, just in case anyone had difficulty recognising him and his voice.

RochdalePioneers

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Their selection criteria for QT audiences seems remarkably elastic, eg the recent Brexit anniversary special where all the audience had voted to leave. I think Bruce said that last night’s show represented the 2019 ge, that is a plurality of Con voters. It’s a poor show (so to speak) when there’s not a single aspiring Tory councillor with a Suella Braverman tattoo in the audience pretending to be a concerned member of the public.

They do seem to have got better at removing the partisan ringers from the crowd to be fair.

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Dr Rosena is very good indeed:

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674544007001636864?t=Cp04c3spJPjfXymLpj-Z6Q&s=19

I cannot read it. It looks as if, overnight, Elon has blocked reading tweets without signing in.

Several updates have been giving nag screens to log in, but it does indeed look like the latest update is an attempt to make it compulsory. It’s probably going to break a bunch of embed stuff used by news sites and forums too.

My only Twitter account is an old work one I use for my consultancy business, I’m sure as hell not using that to go browsing politics feeds.

I’ve been mostly supportive of the changes at Twitter, but forcing the content behind the login screen makes it more like Facebook and less like the town square. A big own goal.

Malmesbury

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The hands thing may not mean much psephologically but it does suggest a return to shy Tory/arsehole syndrome. Time was on QT that the show of palsied hands from red faced old racists in support of any kind of government regressiveness would be a forest, now they know the things they devoutly wished and voted for are an incompetent shitshow and it’s time to lie low.

Is it possibly also because the BBC has changed the erm, distinctly startling selection method that came to light just before the Brexit referendum?

Earlier than that.

Back when Cameron was leader, he used to do a thing called Cameron Direct. He would show up at a factory, office, hospitals etc. and get questioned by the assembled staff. Open mike and no editing. The audience (and questioners) were the people who worked there. The whole thing was videoed and put online.

The BBC and other broadcasters refused to show it. Because they wanted control - to “salt” the audience with activists to stir controversy, plant questions and generally make it fake.

Would be the same sort of timing, actually, as I understand it.

It was earlier than that. The BBC guy who came on the news to explain this was very comfortable, explains that this was long running policy etc.

Apparently, a random selection of people wasn’t balanced, unless salted with opposition activists. And without planted questions, it would be too bland.

What he didn’t say, was the most interesting bit of the whole thing, to me.

Cameron was relying on the fact that most people will hold back from being rude and aggressive on camera - that ordinary people, when confronted with a senior politician and being recorded, won’t go postal on them.

In a separate incident, some years before, I was having a coffee near the South Bank centre. A film crew was interviewing people coming over the footbridge.

They were trying to get a controversial response to a political question. Each time they got a blandly liberal one, they stopped the interview. Next. Etc

Amused by this, I started to film it, using a very early smart phone. A minute later the interviewer stormed over to demand why I was harassing a news crew. This amused me more - filming people filming people is harassing who exactly?

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

3/ What it boils down to is this: the politicians pretend they have solutions to stem the tide of arrivals, but they are lying. The Tory lies about doing it by getting tough have been exposed as such for years, and continue to be so as their tactics fail. Labour makes noises about dealing with the problem through more effective international co-operation (which won't stop people who want to come here from coming anyway) and through creating safe, legal routes of migration (which is a laudable plan in isolation for providing refuge for some applicants, and thus sparing them the peril of long and hazardous journeys along irregular migration routes, but which still won't stop everyone else who wants to come here from coming anyway.)

Any honest discussion about irregular migration therefore involves beginning with an admission that, once they get as far as setting foot in Britain, a large majority of the boat people will get to stay whether we like it or not, simply because the costs of creating mechanisms that will enable the state to forcibly segregate or remove them all far exceed the costs of letting them stay, and that this is likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The money being burnt setting up crackpot wheezes like the failed Rwanda deportation scheme would be better spent on fostering integration, raising funding for local authorities so that they're better able to cope with the additional pressures created by resettlement, and above all on contributing toward the construction of vast numbers of homes. As with so many of our other problems as a nation, they would be eased considerably if there were simply a sufficiency of decent accommodation to cope with all the people that are already living here, and the ongoing expansion of the population in the years ahead.

The trouble with that argument is that once we become a soft touch, word will rapidly get out and the number of arrivals will soar from even their current high levels. None of us can blame the illegals for doing what they're doing, but that level of arrivals would not be politically acceptable, and could lead to a credible, extreme right FN or AfD-style party in this country for the first time.

In reality we do not have "high levels". We take a mere fraction of those suffered by our neighbours.

What is needed is an international effort. The kind cut off by Boris! in his Brexity zeal.

We have low levels of asylum seekers.

We have higher numbers of immigrants of other - denominations? Economic, family etc.

The thing is, that being an economic or asylum migrant is a continuum. Not a binary choice. Most are a mix of both.

My wife came to the U.K. as an economic migrant. Though a portion of her decision was based on the civil war in her country.

One of my closest colleagues arrived here from Baghdad in 1991 on a regular work visa, but was really fleeing the conflict there. Initially she was intending just a year while things blew over.

She has a brother in Germany and another in Turkey, neither of whom can get visas to visit.

algarkirk

RochdalePioneers said:

I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.

Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"

We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.

We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.

Nigelb

Incarceration does seem to be a signature Tory policy. They claim this morning that the prison building program is the second largest national infrastructure project behind HS2.
We have doubled our prison population, and it will soon break historic records as a percentage if the population. To no great end.

Neither will have much economic benefit - HS2 for at least a decade, as its construction is so slow, and prisons not at all.

Typifies the government's grasp of economic strategy.

SouthamObserver

I really wouldn’t read too much into a Question Time studio reaction to anything. More broadly, though, populist policies do require an appreciable level of visible popular backing. Once there is social stigma attached to something, it will tend to lose passive acceptance. See drink driving, indoor smoking, homophobia, racism etc

Big_G_NorthWales

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

To be fair, this is not a short term policy, and presumably the idea is to gradually bring in the change to more hands on training as numbers recruited increase ?

The £10bn saving quoted is over a number of years, so while less significant than the headline suggests, somewhat more realistic.

As you say, it's not simple, but they are at least pointing in the right direction with this ?

Good morning

Listening to Wes Streeting on Sky claiming the NHS proposals are labour's and as such he says labour will support it and give certainty to the NHS for this 15 year plan

Carnyx

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Dr Rosena is very good indeed:

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674544007001636864?t=Cp04c3spJPjfXymLpj-Z6Q&s=19

I cannot read it. It looks as if, overnight, Elon has blocked reading tweets without signing in.

Several updates have been giving nag screens to log in, but it does indeed look like the latest update is an attempt to make it compulsory. It’s probably going to break a bunch of embed stuff used by news sites and forums too.

My only Twitter account is an old work one I use for my consultancy business, I’m sure as hell not using that to go browsing politics feeds.

I’ve been mostly supportive of the changes at Twitter, but forcing the content behind the login screen makes it more like Facebook and less like the town square. A big own goal.

Just had a look at a couple of things I regularly glance at. Screened. And picked a Graun page at random, which has a tweet on it. No go.

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Dr Rosena is very good indeed:

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674544007001636864?t=Cp04c3spJPjfXymLpj-Z6Q&s=19

I cannot read it. It looks as if, overnight, Elon has blocked reading tweets without signing in.

Several updates have been giving nag screens to log in, but it does indeed look like the latest update is an attempt to make it compulsory. It’s probably going to break a bunch of embed stuff used by news sites and forums too.

My only Twitter account is an old work one I use for my consultancy business, I’m sure as hell not using that to go browsing politics feeds.

I’ve been mostly supportive of the changes at Twitter, but forcing the content behind the login screen makes it more like Facebook and less like the town square. A big own goal.

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.

Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"

We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.

We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.

Indeed.
Around a million people enter and leave the UK every day. That's the real 'securing the borders' problem.

Nigelb

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

To be fair, this is not a short term policy, and presumably the idea is to gradually bring in the change to more hands on training as numbers recruited increase ?

The £10bn saving quoted is over a number of years, so while less significant than the headline suggests, somewhat more realistic.

As you say, it's not simple, but they are at least pointing in the right direction with this ?

Good morning

Listening to Wes Streeting on Sky claiming the NHS proposals are labour's and as such he says labour will support it and give certainty to the NHS for this 15 year plan

Yes, it appears on its face a sensible one - but necessary rather than sufficient for sorting NHS problems.

SouthamObserver

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

But that is not the policy, is it? The policy is that if you arrive by small boat you have arrived illegally, have no right to claim UK asylum and are liable for removal to Rwanda with no right to return to the UK. No-one going to Rwanda will have a UK asylum request assessed from there.

TheScreamingEagles

The nasty party tag is back and then some.

Sandpit

On topic.

1. Does anyone who isn’t a very political activist watch QT any more?

2. Sunak pledged to stop boats. The pledge wasn’t to talk about stopping boats, or legislating to stop boats, or persuading courts to issue rulings about stopping boats - it was to actually stop boats, so if boats haven’t stopped then it’s a failure. I’m still not sure he understands the expectations of the electorate, even if many of them won’t put their hand up in public.

I don’t particularly like the guy, although he doesn’t deserve to have his bank accounts closed, but it’s not difficult to see the return of Farage or someone like him at the next election, running on boats as a single issue campaign.

Big_G_NorthWales

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

Yougov have polled much more recently than that, as noted upthread. The policy is not a net positive for you - however much it might please your diehard core voters.

It seems Rwanda is the problem rather than the policy and it would make sense to seek alternatives

I expect Rishi is longing for the summer recess and hopefully take a long and considered review of not only Rwanda, but his cabinet generally, and in particular reshuffle Braverman away from the home office which is toxic under her

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, this is the socialism Nigel Lawson and Margaret Thatcher fought against whilst in opposition.

Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh backlash over stealth taxes after official figures showed that the number of higher-rate taxpayers has risen by 40 per cent in the past three years.

Almost 5.6 million people, equivalent to one in six taxpayers, will pay the higher rate this year after the government froze the threshold at which people start paying it

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-in-stealth-tax-row-as-higher-rate-snares-40-more-workers-7px2nt887

Carnyx

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

The policy may be unpopular with Leavers but amongst the Conservative core vote and Leavers it goes down well.

73 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 42 per cent of voters overall back sending migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/31/3c056/2

But that is not the policy, is it? The policy is that if you arrive by small boat you have arrived illegally, have no right to claim UK asylum and are liable for removal to Rwanda with no right to return to the UK. No-ne going to Rwanda will have a UK asylum request assessed from there.

Also that poll is *eight months* old - and politics have evolved since then.

SouthamObserver

RochdalePioneers said:

I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.

Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"

We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.

Yep, the Tories do seem to be stuck in 2019 with their blob, lefty lawyers, enemies of the people schtick. They don't seem to understand that things have moved on and they have lost all benefit of the doubt.

Carnyx

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12248079/Inside-Britains-newest-greenest-prison-24-learning-workshops.html

DM upset because a new prison doesn't have iron bars on the windows. Read the DM for the most modern penology.

TheScreamingEagles

School fees are now the biggest expense for wealthy grandparents helping out their adult children, a report has shown.

A survey of people with assets of more than £250,000 found that the majority — 79 per cent — were supporting their adult children.

The most common reason was to help with private school fees. Independent school fees increased by 5.6 per cent this year, the biggest amount since the financial crash of 2009. They are expected to rise even more next year.

The fourth Saltus Wealth Index report surveyed 2,000 wealthy people, which it refers to as “high net worth individuals”. Among those who were helping their adult children, 42 per cent were covering school fees for grandchildren, 23 per cent were contributing to mortgage payments, 20 per cent to rent and 32 per cent to weekly grocery bills.

Many independent schools froze their fees during the pandemic but have now put them up considerably. The Independent Schools Council 2023 census said the fees could be likened to government levels of wage inflation.

The average day-school fee is £16,656, up by 37 per cent from the £12,153 in 2013. The average boarding fee is £39,000, up by 41 per cent from £27,600 ten years ago.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-bank-of-granny-and-grandad-keeps-children-in-private-schools-nqsnrcjgg

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

There is the small difficulty of who is going to train this horde to be let loose on the Great British public. Medical training is very intense and often one to one, and requires very careful supervision by skilled practitioners (like yours truly) to be done safely and ethically.

Which is all fine and dandy for me, as I am a skilled trainer with excellent trainee feedback and enjoy what I do to bring on these rookies. I cannot do it while simultaneously going gangbusters on the waiting list. It is one or the other.

To be fair, this is not a short term policy, and presumably the idea is to gradually bring in the change to more hands on training as numbers recruited increase ?

The £10bn saving quoted is over a number of years, so while less significant than the headline suggests, somewhat more realistic.

As you say, it's not simple, but they are at least pointing in the right direction with this ?

Good morning

Listening to Wes Streeting on Sky claiming the NHS proposals are labour's and as such he says labour will support it and give certainty to the NHS for this 15 year plan

Yes, Labour announced it last year as their plan.

The issue is resourcing the plan in terms of trainers, trainees, training infrastructure and time. Which is why Hunt has been delaying it so long and the financial impact falls next parliament.

I have no problem with the principle (though I think the apprentice doctor scheme needs to be restricted to those with an appropriate science degree), just very sceptical as to the quality of training.

A major gripe of current undergraduate and postgraduate trainees is the poor quality of training and supervision. Dilute it further and we may have homeopathic doctors in a different sense.

A major cause of burnout and stress related illness in junior staff is lack of supervision and mentoring. Nothing makes people more likely to quit than feeling dangerously out of their depth.

With current Physician Assosciates we have the opposite problem. All too often they are dangerously over confident, and don't know what they don't know.

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12248079/Inside-Britains-newest-greenest-prison-24-learning-workshops.html

DM upset because a new prison doesn't have iron bars on the windows. Read the DM for the most modern penology.

Wait until the Mail hear about Cat D prisons.

RochdalePioneers

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.

Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"

We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.

We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.

Like many people on here I am a parent. I also have nieces and nephews. To put myself onto one of these dinghies with a high chance of drowning would be a hard decision to take. To put a child - mine, one of my brothers etc - on the boat with me and also put them at high risk of drowning? How bad must it be to take that risk? They are motivated alright - motivated to find a place they can rebuild their lives.

This is what othering does. It makes these people not human. That they aren't making the horrendous choice to get on a boat because to not do so is worse. That we don't need to and worse should not have a human response.

Do I need to post that horrendous photo of Alan Kurdi lying dead on that beach in Greece to illustrate that these people are human? The Tories want to demonise these people. To secure the votes of the pro-golliwog people. I'm not surprised that nobody on QT put their hands up in support. Its shameful and immoral. And sadly for the Tories voters actually do have human feelings still.

Luckyguy1983

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Biggest NHS reform in its history to save taxpayer £10bn
Sunak to unveil ‘radical’ vision to transform the health service by building up army of apprentice medics, and cutting agency staff bill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/rishi-sunak-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-announced/ (£££)
and also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/steve-barclay-nhs-will-have-healthy-future-modernisation/ (£££)

Apprentice doctors and nurses, consideration of cutting medical degrees from five to four years (as they already are for graduate entry) and an expansion of physician assistants.

Sounds interesting - if the plans look workable I'll be the first to praise Sunak for attempting to reform the service.

Pulpstar

I wonder how many people decrying how awful Rwanda is have actually been there recently..

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, this is the socialism Nigel Lawson and Margaret Thatcher fought against whilst in opposition.

Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh backlash over stealth taxes after official figures showed that the number of higher-rate taxpayers has risen by 40 per cent in the past three years.

Almost 5.6 million people, equivalent to one in six taxpayers, will pay the higher rate this year after the government froze the threshold at which people start paying it

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-in-stealth-tax-row-as-higher-rate-snares-40-more-workers-7px2nt887

I had just noticed the DM report on the same matter when you made your post. DM is indignant that its pensioner-rentier audience has to pay tax.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12248525/Nest-eggs-dividends-raided-24bn-savings-tax-bombshell.html?ico=mol_desktop_money-newtab&molReferrerUrl=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/index.html

kjh

My dad's house clearance in progress. It is chaos.

@Foxy my wife worked in Leicester, although I suspect you were in short trousers when she was a junior doctor there. She ended up in St George's London teaching.

Interested in your views on the announcement today. My wife has often commented that on qualifying she was as useful as a chocolate teapot in the real job initially so even then it was years of on the job training.

algarkirk

Sandpit said:

On topic.

1. Does anyone who isn’t a very political activist watch QT any more?

2. Sunak pledged to stop boats. The pledge wasn’t to talk about stopping boats, or legislating to stop boats, or persuading courts to issue rulings about stopping boats - it was to actually stop boats, so if boats haven’t stopped then it’s a failure. I’m still not sure he understands the expectations of the electorate, even if many of them won’t put their hand up in public.

I don’t particularly like the guy, although he doesn’t deserve to have his bank accounts closed, but it’s not difficult to see the return of Farage or someone like him at the next election, running on boats as a single issue campaign.

As long as it is physically possible for migrants to get to France, for boats of some sort to exist and there are people wanting to make money out of crime then 'stopping the boats' is not in Rishi's gift.

It's a bit like conducting, as we have for the last 50 years, a 'war on drugs'.

If Rishi had a sense of humour he would offer Farage the job of 'boats czar'.