Perhaps we should grow a pair and leave the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea if - as appears to be the case - it is taking precedence over the rights of the people of Epping.
That would put us in the USA position of never having joined it in the first place.
There you go. Enough of this "international law" nonsense. International law? ... LOL.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
Yes. And as a result we have a hard right party leading by 15 points in the polls
At what point do Woke wankers understand they are leading us to a very British kind of Nazism? You cannot bottle up and silence that fury forever. If we want our liberal democracy to endure, we are going to have to be very illiberal, for about a decade, on all matters to do with migration, asylum, integration, Islam, etc. That way democracy survives, there is no other way
What's more, just as Australia shows you CAN deal with boats, Denmark has shown that you CAN preserve your democracy and exclude the far right from power, if the centrist parties are willing to get suitably tough. But you really do have to be tough: Denmark demolishes ethnic ghettoes. It sends in the bulldozers. It ignores the pleas of lefty EU lawyers and gets on with the task
As a result the Danish far right has been reduced to a rump
The centre party in Poland also saw off the far right. Their method - attack the underlying issues.
Why are people upset by migration? Because their community is getting poorer and they feel helpless. If people felt like they had good jobs and good pay and good services then there wouldn't be the same frustration.
I have said for a while that we should fear what comes after Farage - because he will fail. Lets assume that he is elected and he does all the things you suggest about migration. Go further - send it masked "patriots" to drag people away. After a period of euphoria people then ask if they are better off. And find not only things aren't getting better, they are getting worse.
We aren't having enough babies, we aren't training enough people to do the work we need. Which is why we had waves of migration. Take away the migrants and we have even fewer people paying taxes and doing critical work - and a government whose policies on practically everything that isn't migration work against the issues people cite as problems for them.
We saw this with Brexit. Vote leave. Take Back Control. Get Brexit Done. Fuck all positive changed in people's lives so they threw that government out. As they will Farage. But with so many governments having failed to go after the structural inequalities breaking western societies like ours, the trend is towards authoritarian solutions...
I like this take, RP, there's a lot in it and it's hopeful and it steers to the sort of politics (focus on reducing inequality) that I support.
But I increasingly struggle to hang onto it. The alternative view is this frenzy about migrants isn't driven by economics, what it's mainly about is racism - or xenophobic nativism if we wish to be kind - finding an outlet and its voice.
Most Reform supporters are not financially struggling and working class. The notion it's a predominantly 'redwall' uprising is false. And a very sobering stat from the other day, almost half of Reform supporters think the party should actively associate itself with Lucy Connolly. I mean, wow or what?
You're working on the assumption that the racism and bigotry is only one way.
Have you ever considered that immigrants and immigrant communities, in particular those immigrants from less developed and less tolerant countries, are themselves more racist and bigoted than the British people you're condemning for racism and bigotry ?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Policy Exchange which made up some rubbish about leaving the ECHR not being a problem for NI are being torn to shreds today . Jack Straw who cluelessly supported their view needs to STFU and stop embarrassing himself .
Why do you want to as you say SFTU voices that may have an alternative view to yours
It's not Jack Straw embarrassing himself
Actually even Cooper is considering reclusing parts of the ECHR and last time I looked she was Labour's own Home Secretary
"Even though irregular maritime arrivals are a small fraction of the total immigration to the UK, they have totemic potency way beyond their actual number."
If it was not for them, the racists would find something else to whip up a frenzy about.
There speaks a well off member of society, no inkling of what is going on at the bottom of the pile among the great unwashed.
The point is that the racists want some issue to be able to 'get' at immigrants. Currently, the main one is the boat arrivals. The fact that the frenzy they're stirring up is affecting the lives of immigrants who did not come on boats is irrelevant to them - as seen in several stories over the last couple of days. Or even a positive side-effect in their eyes. If the boat arrivals were to immediately stop, they would find some other issue with which to get at immigrants.
The current situation with asylum and the boats is unsustainable, for society and the asylum-seekers themselves. It needs improving. But even when it is, there will be some new anti-immigrant scandal that the racists will hook on to.
On this point watch Sky News at 10.30am on their report from Nuneaton
It is very disturbing and why the boats have to be stopped urgently when I believe the oxygen will be removed from the right and racist
Reform won’t stop . They’re now saying net migration should be zero , even if asylum claims fall dramatically they’ll say that’s too much . Reform survive by making people angry , offering simplistic solutions . Why Zia Yusuf is with him when what’s really going on amongst their base is they want non-white immigrants shipped out even if here legally . The brain dead wife beaters masquerading as so called patriots want a whiter Britain .
This will help. Only four houses but it’s hard enough to get on the property ladder.
Asylum seekers 'are given new £300k townhouses with en-suites, EV charging points and underfloor heating'... while locals battle to get on the property ladder
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
Perhaps because we took in roughly 2.3 MILLION people, net, in the years 2021-2024? A wave of migration that is virtually unexampled in human history, outside wartime?
Boris Johnson. And he did it for a laugh. Ironically Farage now seeks to win power by reassembling the same 2019 Get Brexit Done voter coalition that delivered us Johnson in the first place. You couldn't make it up.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
Policy Exchange which made up some rubbish about leaving the ECHR not being a problem for NI are being torn to shreds today . Jack Straw who cluelessly supported their view needs to STFU and stop embarrassing himself .
Why do you want to as you say SFTU voices that may have an alternative view to yours
It's not Jack Straw embarrassing himself
Actually even Cooper is considering reclusing parts of the ECHR and last time I looked she was Labour's own Home Secretary
If Jack Straw isn't embarrassing himself, it's because he is incapable of embarrassment.
We went through all of this in the Brexit wars- think tanks claiming that international law meant that the UK could do something it wanted and there would be no pushback. There was always pushback.
And (because I don't know), are HMG's plans about stepping back from the convention itself, or from some British gold-plating? The two are potentially very different.
Policy Exchange which made up some rubbish about leaving the ECHR not being a problem for NI are being torn to shreds today . Jack Straw who cluelessly supported their view needs to STFU and stop embarrassing himself .
Why do you want to as you say SFTU voices that may have an alternative view to yours
It's not Jack Straw embarrassing himself
Actually even Cooper is considering reclusing parts of the ECHR and last time I looked she was Labour's own Home Secretary
He is , Policy Exchange are not neutral observers and Jack Straw is a moron and Farage enabler. Cooper is seeking to limit Article 8 in terms of interpretation by UK judges . This is vastly different from the drivel emanating out of Policy Exchange. The reason the ECHR is in the GFA was because communities didn’t trust a national government to protect them . Policy Exchange also fail to address the political ramifications of withdrawal given the EU UK Windsor Framework and EU UK deal on trade and security co-operation.
Good thread header. Not least because I learnt stuff from it.
But please don't start giving the UK Government - or future governments - ideas. I am not sure they are bright enough to have worked out the Tow back solution for themselves and it would be better if they stayed ignorant.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.
Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.
A definition of dependant gives:
a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support.
Of course many of these 'dependants' aren't relying on a family member for financial support but on British taxpayers.
The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed.
More immigrants are in employment (77%) than UK-born individuals (75%).
Median yearly earnings for UK-born individuals in 2024 was £29,600 compared to £30,000 for non-EU immigrants and £31,100 for EU immigrants.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.
Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.
A definition of dependant gives:
a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support.
Of course many of these 'dependants' aren't relying on a family member for financial support but on British taxpayers.
The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed.
More immigrants are in employment (77%) than UK-born individuals (75%).
Median yearly earnings for UK-born individuals in 2024 was £29,600 compared to £30,000 for non-EU immigrants and £31,100 for EU immigrants.
You’re deliberately confusing an issue. I’m talking specifically about asylum seekers given leave to remain. As was the post I replied to.
You said, and I quote, "The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed." This tendency to confuse "immigrants" with "asylum seekers" with "illegal immigrants" is part of the problem. Perhaps it would help if everyone was a bit clearer what they meant.
That's a fair point.
And that clarity needs to start from government.
Both from better information and politicians admitting they've messed up when they've messed up.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
An immediate solution would be great, but in real life, some things take a bit of time. The UK public don't support an immediate solution at any cost. For example: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/06/06/7bca7/1 June 2025 "Do you think Britain should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights or should we withdraw from it?" Should remain a member: 51%. Should withdraw from it: 27%.
The British public want a solution that still keeps us in international agreements and which recognises that some people do deserve asylum. The British people reject the abhorrent racism seen from far right agitators and their followers. The British people think, yes, we need to do something about this, but we should do something sensible and uphold our traditional British values.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.
Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.
A definition of dependant gives:
a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support.
Of course many of these 'dependants' aren't relying on a family member for financial support but on British taxpayers.
The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed.
More immigrants are in employment (77%) than UK-born individuals (75%).
Median yearly earnings for UK-born individuals in 2024 was £29,600 compared to £30,000 for non-EU immigrants and £31,100 for EU immigrants.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.
Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.
A definition of dependant gives:
a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support.
Of course many of these 'dependants' aren't relying on a family member for financial support but on British taxpayers.
The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed.
More immigrants are in employment (77%) than UK-born individuals (75%).
Median yearly earnings for UK-born individuals in 2024 was £29,600 compared to £30,000 for non-EU immigrants and £31,100 for EU immigrants.
You’re deliberately confusing an issue. I’m talking specifically about asylum seekers given leave to remain. As was the post I replied to.
You said, and I quote, "The number of immigrants in receipt of any financial assistance from the UK government should be revealed." This tendency to confuse "immigrants" with "asylum seekers" with "illegal immigrants" is part of the problem. Perhaps it would help if everyone was a bit clearer what they meant.
That's a fair point.
And that clarity needs to start from government.
Both from better information and politicians admitting they've messed up when they've messed up.
Clarity, better information and politicians admitting they've messed up all get a thumbs up from me.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
Yes. And as a result we have a hard right party leading by 15 points in the polls
At what point do Woke wankers understand they are leading us to a very British kind of Nazism? You cannot bottle up and silence that fury forever. If we want our liberal democracy to endure, we are going to have to be very illiberal, for about a decade, on all matters to do with migration, asylum, integration, Islam, etc. That way democracy survives, there is no other way
What's more, just as Australia shows you CAN deal with boats, Denmark has shown that you CAN preserve your democracy and exclude the far right from power, if the centrist parties are willing to get suitably tough. But you really do have to be tough: Denmark demolishes ethnic ghettoes. It sends in the bulldozers. It ignores the pleas of lefty EU lawyers and gets on with the task
As a result the Danish far right has been reduced to a rump
The centre party in Poland also saw off the far right. Their method - attack the underlying issues.
Why are people upset by migration? Because their community is getting poorer and they feel helpless. If people felt like they had good jobs and good pay and good services then there wouldn't be the same frustration.
I have said for a while that we should fear what comes after Farage - because he will fail. Lets assume that he is elected and he does all the things you suggest about migration. Go further - send it masked "patriots" to drag people away. After a period of euphoria people then ask if they are better off. And find not only things aren't getting better, they are getting worse.
We aren't having enough babies, we aren't training enough people to do the work we need. Which is why we had waves of migration. Take away the migrants and we have even fewer people paying taxes and doing critical work - and a government whose policies on practically everything that isn't migration work against the issues people cite as problems for them.
We saw this with Brexit. Vote leave. Take Back Control. Get Brexit Done. Fuck all positive changed in people's lives so they threw that government out. As they will Farage. But with so many governments having failed to go after the structural inequalities breaking western societies like ours, the trend is towards authoritarian solutions...
I like this take, RP, there's a lot in it and it's hopeful and it steers to the sort of politics (focus on reducing inequality) that I support.
But I increasingly struggle to hang onto it. The alternative view is this frenzy about migrants isn't driven by economics, what it's mainly about is racism - or xenophobic nativism if we wish to be kind - finding an outlet and its voice.
Most Reform supporters are not financially struggling and working class. The notion it's a predominantly 'redwall' uprising is false. And a very sobering stat from the other day, almost half of Reform supporters think the party should actively associate itself with Lucy Connolly. I mean, wow or what?
You're working on the assumption that the racism and bigotry is only one way.
Have you ever considered that immigrants and immigrant communities, in particular those immigrants from less developed and less tolerant countries, are themselves more racist and bigoted than the British people you're condemning for racism and bigotry ?
I'm sure that's true with some of them and my point doesn't assume it isn't.
Morning all! Bright and sunny here again; not like autumn at all!
I struggle somewhat with this immigration issue. My natural inclination is to help people who are suffering and the idea of telling someone who has spent everything to escape persecution to "go away and knock next door.... any other door' fills me with horror. Equally the idea of telling someone that they can come because they're fit and strong and can do something the country needs...... like help someone like myself, who needs assistance with care ...... but they can't bring their spouse and children, or even their old granny who will help look after said children is anathema. I don't mind new religious establishments either.
But I'm not keen on having people about who are wearing so much on the heads that I can' only just about see their eyes. I do think that if one moves to a new country there ought to be an element of 'fitting in'... doing what the Romans do.
I can understand people objecting when asylum seekers are put up in hotels that they'd have difficulty in affording themselves, even if the hotels, in reality, aren't providing anywhere near the service they provide normally.
And I do feel sad when I see green farmland turned into housing!
This will help. Only four houses but it’s hard enough to get on the property ladder.
Asylum seekers 'are given new £300k townhouses with en-suites, EV charging points and underfloor heating'... while locals battle to get on the property ladder
So the actual story is Serco made an offer that was more attractive than the other options the builder / owners received
The reason is cost-plus contracting
Serco know that they can get any price from the Government, with a bit of profit on top.
So they can outbid anyone on vast swathe of the housing market.
And given that the profit is a percentage, the larger the actual price for the house, the better for Serco. "We only made 20% on the transaction".
The other advantage for Serco is that by going for new built, allegedly good quality housing, they don't get immediately sued for being slum landlords.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
I know that. But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important. I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
And what if there isn't an immediate solution? Or not one without unacceptable consequences?
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
I know that. But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important. I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.
I thought it was the quislings saying that and the Russian/Iranian/Chinese bots amplifying it?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
And what if there isn't an immediate solution? Or not one without unacceptable consequences?
Well then, Farage will be PM and I am not at all sure you or I want that
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
And what if there isn't an immediate solution? Or not one without unacceptable consequences?
Well, my solution to illegal employment would collapse Deliveroo - or treble their prices.
The riots that would result from having to pick up your own takeaway.....
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
And what if there isn't an immediate solution? Or not one without unacceptable consequences?
There isn't an immediate solution but it suits the Conservatives and their lapdog Press to say that there is, even though they completely failed when they were in Government and, indeed, to a large degree were responsible for the situation in the first place.
Morning all! Bright and sunny here again; not like autumn at all!
I struggle somewhat with this immigration issue. My natural inclination is to help people who are suffering and the idea of telling someone who has spent everything to escape persecution to "go away and knock next door.... any other door' fills me with horror. Equally the idea of telling someone that they can come because they're fit and strong and can do something the country needs...... like help someone like myself, who needs assistance with care ...... but they can't bring their spouse and children, or even their old granny who will help look after said children is anathema. I don't mind new religious establishments either.
But I'm not keen on having people about who are wearing so much on the heads that I can' only just about see their eyes. I do think that if one moves to a new country there ought to be an element of 'fitting in'... doing what the Romans do.
I can understand people objecting when asylum seekers are put up in hotels that they'd have difficulty in affording themselves, even if the hotels, in reality, aren't providing anywhere near the service they provide normally.
And I do feel sad when I see green farmland turned into housing!
Wise words from old shoulders which I wholly endorse
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
I know that. But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important. I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.
I suspect that if we dig deeper into the gangs and the messaging that is encouraging migrants to come over, you will find Russia's sticky fingers.
They've certainly weaponised migration against Poland and the Baltic states.
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.
Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.
More economically inactive burdens on the taxpayer.
Dig deep wage slaves. Others need your money.
Why presume they will be economically inactive?
Because statistically that is the case for adults and clearly children brought won’t be.
Some will, some won't. They're not a homogenous whole. The children will grow up and become economically active, like children born here do.
If we those granted asylum and their families to be economically active, let's help them to be so by resolving asylum cases promptly, so people can enter the labour market, and providing educational support, e.g. improving people's English. Let's stop viewing anyone as a "burden on the taxpayer" and start viewing everyone as a potential asset to the country.
So the £7B a year hotel bill is an asset, who would have thought. They get everything else free on a plate why not add English lessons to their driving lessons, laptops, phones , etc. It is madness, we cannot employ our own wasters, so we pay a fortune to people on the dole and another fortune bringing in more wasters and then politicians wonder why things are crap. Viewing all this from ivory towers by bleeding heart wokes may look great but not so good if you are in the middle of it I bet. Some people are able to imagine that this is not the way forward and it will not end well if it continues.
It is in our interests that immigrants speak English.
Actually it's very hard to learn English in the UK, there are very basic English courses but if you want more than that you have to attend adult literacy or GCSE classes for adults, which of course are aimed at native speakers
I tend to assume that economic migrants should learn English at their own expense, but where are the coursrs they can pay for?
With school rolls predicted to start falling after 2026, there's a fairly obvious policy win/win for a vaguely imaginative government.
Boriswave levels of immigration aren't manageable, as the last few years have demonstrated, but the proposition that we need zero net immigration is, IMO, daft.
Unfortunately, we have a government scared of its own shadow, which seriously inhibits constructive (versus reactive) policy making.
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
I'd add a further point. If you are accepted as a refugee, the receiving country owes you a duty to provide asylum. However, you in turn, owe no obligations to that country, in terms of respecting their laws. Your status as a refugee is irrevocable.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
I know that. But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important. I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.
I suspect that if we dig deeper into the gangs and the messaging that is encouraging migrants to come over, you will find Russia's sticky fingers.
They've certainly weaponised migration against Poland and the Baltic states.
If we dig deeper we'll find Russia behind almost all of what's happened in the politics of the West for around 15 years. The fact that there's a substantial segment of the population that would lap up living under Putinism is an essential part of its success.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
Not impressed by the header. Having a go at Reform supporters just because they're ahead in the polls is a silly thing to do.
I don't think that's what Dura is doing.
And having a go at Reform leaders for being a bunch of shysters and their supporters for swallowing it... It may offend sensibilities, but he's not wrong.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
Utterly bewildering we ever allowed such a generous system to operate in the first place. And predictably maddening that first the Tories then Labour (until now) have never moved to close it down
My hunch is that this issue is now baked in. The public mood has gone far beyond "the boats" and is now anti-immigration in general, and to a pretty severe degree., and it is probably irreversible, until dramatic changes occur
It's sad. We had a pretty harmonious country, with flaws, until 10-20 years ago. Grotesque ineptitude - or outright treachery - has squandered this inheritance
They never wanted to close it down as the system was operating as intended. We had years of politicians, on inward migration in general, moaning it was too high while doing nothing aside enable it. The moral cowardice of the Blair and Cameron years on migration is stark.
What’s changed ? The public seems to have had enough and the old tactic of just telling everyone they are racist for not being happy clappy about mass inward migration no longer works.
It is ironic that you describe Blair's "moral cowardice" on this issue and yet Farage in his big policy launch speech repeatedly praised Blair for his swift action to remove illegal migrants...
You’re talking about two different things.
I’m talking about Blair’s moral cowardice for enable a huge increase in inward migration while failing to make the case for it and even complaining, as Cameron did, it was too high and they needed to do something about it. While doing nothing.
The case for it? We lacked a workforce in a large areas of the economy. The wave of Eastern Europeans was paraded as a Massive Crisis. 20 years on and nobody is bothered about Poles et al.
Again, as filling the workforce gaps is now seen as treason, we have two choices: 1) A national campaign to get people shagging. Get the birthrate up significantly. Combined with a significant long term investment to train "British" people to be plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers. 2) Successfully deport the "pakis" (note how that word keeps coming back as the label for everyone) and suffer a sharp national decline as patriots fail to train up as plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers and fail to have more babies because nobody wants to shag them
We've had millions of economically inactive people since the 1980s. What should have happened is that those people should have been trained to do the new jobs which were becoming available instead of expecting migrants to do them. But that would have been more difficult and cost more initially. Politicians took this easy route instead of the one they should have done.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
An immediate solution would be great, but in real life, some things take a bit of time. The UK public don't support an immediate solution at any cost. For example: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/06/06/7bca7/1 June 2025 "Do you think Britain should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights or should we withdraw from it?" Should remain a member: 51%. Should withdraw from it: 27%.
The British public want a solution that still keeps us in international agreements and which recognises that some people do deserve asylum. The British people reject the abhorrent racism seen from far right agitators and their followers. The British people think, yes, we need to do something about this, but we should do something sensible and uphold our traditional British values.
I'm sure you're right, but we have to recognise that the populist destructive "right" are very successfully weaponising this issue and that drawing the sting must be the overriding priority. And, to be fair, @leon has been prescient about the dangers inherent in this. People who object to large-scale immigration of the type we are seeing have more than a point. No-one voted for this, and it is undermining our democracy from several directions at once. The termites are feasting.
If mainstream democratic politicians can't sort out problems like this, then the demos will turn to others. But with the Conservatives lacking credibility due to the Boriswave, and Labour constitutionally unable to deal with the problem without tearing themselves apart, we are living in tricky times. Straw, Blunkett and Rifkind are right about this - addressing the ECHR may be the least-worst option.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
The right to settle in this country, refugee or not, needs to be contingent upon obedience to the laws. This point is obvious, but one that the human rights elite finds hard to understand.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
Utterly bewildering we ever allowed such a generous system to operate in the first place. And predictably maddening that first the Tories then Labour (until now) have never moved to close it down
My hunch is that this issue is now baked in. The public mood has gone far beyond "the boats" and is now anti-immigration in general, and to a pretty severe degree., and it is probably irreversible, until dramatic changes occur
It's sad. We had a pretty harmonious country, with flaws, until 10-20 years ago. Grotesque ineptitude - or outright treachery - has squandered this inheritance
They never wanted to close it down as the system was operating as intended. We had years of politicians, on inward migration in general, moaning it was too high while doing nothing aside enable it. The moral cowardice of the Blair and Cameron years on migration is stark.
What’s changed ? The public seems to have had enough and the old tactic of just telling everyone they are racist for not being happy clappy about mass inward migration no longer works.
It is ironic that you describe Blair's "moral cowardice" on this issue and yet Farage in his big policy launch speech repeatedly praised Blair for his swift action to remove illegal migrants...
You’re talking about two different things.
I’m talking about Blair’s moral cowardice for enable a huge increase in inward migration while failing to make the case for it and even complaining, as Cameron did, it was too high and they needed to do something about it. While doing nothing.
The case for it? We lacked a workforce in a large areas of the economy. The wave of Eastern Europeans was paraded as a Massive Crisis. 20 years on and nobody is bothered about Poles et al.
Again, as filling the workforce gaps is now seen as treason, we have two choices: 1) A national campaign to get people shagging. Get the birthrate up significantly. Combined with a significant long term investment to train "British" people to be plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers. 2) Successfully deport the "pakis" (note how that word keeps coming back as the label for everyone) and suffer a sharp national decline as patriots fail to train up as plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers and fail to have more babies because nobody wants to shag them
We've had millions of economically inactive people since the 1980s. What should have happened is that those people should have been trained to do the new jobs which were becoming available instead of expecting migrants to do them. But that would have been more difficult and cost more initially. Politicians took this easy route instead of the one they should have done.
Well yes, the politicians that used the windfall of NS oil & gas to pay unemployment benefits, redundancy payments and sickness benefits rather than enact huge retraining schemes should certainly take a lot of the blame.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
So towing them west into international waters then reshipping them to the West coast of France is legal? Ok I can work with that. How about those that depart from The Netherlands and Belgium? Is there an equivalent area in the bit where the North Sea meets the Channel?
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
An immediate solution would be great, but in real life, some things take a bit of time. The UK public don't support an immediate solution at any cost. For example: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/06/06/7bca7/1 June 2025 "Do you think Britain should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights or should we withdraw from it?" Should remain a member: 51%. Should withdraw from it: 27%.
The British public want a solution that still keeps us in international agreements and which recognises that some people do deserve asylum. The British people reject the abhorrent racism seen from far right agitators and their followers. The British people think, yes, we need to do something about this, but we should do something sensible and uphold our traditional British values.
I'm sure you're right, but we have to recognise that the populist destructive "right" are very successfully weaponising this issue and that drawing the sting must be the overriding priority. And, to be fair, @leon has been prescient about the dangers inherent in this. People who object to large-scale immigration of the type we are seeing have more than a point. No-one voted for this, and it is undermining our democracy from several directions at once. The termites are feasting.
If mainstream democratic politicians can't sort out problems like this, then the demos will turn to others. But with the Conservatives lacking credibility due to the Boriswave, and Labour constitutionally unable to deal with the problem without tearing themselves apart, we are living in tricky times. Straw, Blunkett and Rifkind are right about this - addressing the ECHR may be the least-worst option.
How do the other signatories feel about it? One of the (much) nastier features of Brexit is that we've adopted an even more Sinn Fein-like attitude... Ourselves Alone. Maybe the ECHR and it's principles are ripe for review; what to the other participants think?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
Very good analogy. However I believe there's a touch of Quantum in there too. Specifically the idea that randomness plays a bigger role in things than is generally acknowledged - because we like to feel in control, see causes and effects, construct inevitabilities, often in retrospect.
But don't get me wrong. The bookies have the right fav in Reform for the next GE.
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
Is this the same Darren Jones who went on QT and lied about the demographic makeup of people arriving on small boats and then tried to lie his way out of it?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
Is this the same Darren Jones who went on QT and lied about the demographic makeup of people arriving on small boats and then tried to lie his way out of it?
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
If point 1 is adopted, your question does not arise. If they are already legally here, why would they need to apply for asylum? If they are here on a short-term basis, then at the end of it they should leave. I am not aware of how normal applications for a visa to work and live here work but that is the policy which should be adopted for everyone ie it is Britain who decides who is let into the country on the criteria it lays out - not by a person claiming persecution which the government is obliged to accept regardless of any other factors.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
General bullshit tweet that doesn't reflect the actual article - he's clearly not being released due to worsening his mental health, despite that being in quotes.
Sounds like a much more complicated situation.
The court seems to be saying that he's being kept in prison, when he should already have been released. The Home Office were already trying to find him somewhere that social services consider acceptable. I'd assume if he's just not considered safe, then he'll end up in some secure accommodation, but he's only being released because it was time for him to be released like any other prisoner.
There may be an argument that his asylum claim should be refused, because he's committed a crime, but that's a different argument.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Small boats are a bit like a slow-motion D Day, but in reverse.
So towing them west into international waters then reshipping them to the West coast of France is legal? Ok I can work with that. How about those that depart from The Netherlands and Belgium? Is there an equivalent area in the bit where the North Sea meets the Channel?
It's only a very short section of the Channel which is so narrow that there aren't international wasters in the middle, but you could go a bit further east and end the tow off the coast of Ostend - straight road from there to Brussels, as someone suggested earlier.
If not tow backs then the British government will have to do something.
As a noted PB-er not so long ago pointed out in a whole post on the matter, it is not the measly numbers (although growing) that is the issue, it is that these boats are the most visible and literal (hi Leon) manifestation of the government's lack of control. Over our borders in this instance and, people will inevitably extrapolate, over other parts of the economy also.
Is why it's so dangerous.
As for practical measures to stop them? F**k knows.
It is doing something. The August weather has been glorious. Perfect for small boat crossings. And yet Lowest number of people in small boats since 2021 Lowest number of boat crossings since 2019
The boats were a diversion, whilst everyone was looking at them we didn’t notice the gangs building a dirty long tunnel under the channel.
A big factor in the small boats increase is that we successfully closed down the lorry routes. Opening that up again would pay immediate dividends on the boats. Surprised this never gets a mention as a possible way forward.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
"Events, dear boy, events." It's a long time until the next general election. Outside events may change the situation, irrespective of what Starmer or Farage do.
Good thread header. Not least because I learnt stuff from it.
But please don't start giving the UK Government - or future governments - ideas. I am not sure they are bright enough to have worked out the Tow back solution for themselves and it would be better if they stayed ignorant.
IT is an interesting and useful header, as was (some of) the discussion. But I'm left with the feeling that there is a fundamental asymmetry. The smugglers have narrow waters to contend with but UKG has affectively a 'width' that is a fair chunk of the length of the Channel when it comes to chucking them back into a return boat. That is going to complicate on station/off station time a great deal - especially when the day/night cycle is added. Maybe explains why Mr Sunak - who is not stupid - and colleagues didn't do it that way?
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
If point 1 is adopted, your question does not arise. If they are already legally here, why would they need to apply for asylum? If they are here on a short-term basis, then at the end of it they should leave. I am not aware of how normal applications for a visa to work and live here work but that is the policy which should be adopted for everyone ie it is Britain who decides who is let into the country on the criteria it lays out - not by a person claiming persecution which the government is obliged to accept regardless of any other factors.
Surely your third sentence is the answer to your second sentence.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The Latin tag at the end of the article means "those who traverse the sea change their sky, not their souls". Or, as Buckaroo Banzai put it "wherever you go, there you are". Which goes to show that @Dura_Ace (good article btw, dude) had a classical education and I got mine from - metaphorically - Forbidden Planet 😀
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
Very good analogy. However I believe there's a touch of Quantum in there too. Specifically the idea that randomness plays a bigger role in things than is generally acknowledged - because we like to feel in control, see causes and effects, construct inevitabilities, often in retrospect.
But don't get me wrong. The bookies have the right fav in Reform for the next GE.
I think there's a lot of mileage in a parallel with quantum mechanics, particularly with the involvement of a ballot box.
But you might argue that the stench of decay surrounding the Labour government is building as quickly as it would from a cat in a box killed by the release of poison following the quantum decay of a particle. Sometimes opening the box is just a formality.
We'll just have to wait and see how much of a surprise the exit poll is.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
"Events, dear boy, events." It's a long time until the next general election. Outside events may change the situation, irrespective of what Starmer or Farage do.
However, a big problem for the government is they have ratnered themselves so quickly, that even some reasonable decisions, the public appears to give them no credit. Dealing with Trump and Ukraine, Starmer has done fine, gets no bump in polling. Its very hard to turn that around.
For me it seems to be we are down to Farage puts his foot in it massively and the government appeal to the left to hold on to nurse vote.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
What element of that was UK 'controlling their borders' and what was relative stability in foreign parts, foreign countries enforcing their land borders and limited forms of travel?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
"Events, dear boy, events." It's a long time until the next general election. Outside events may change the situation, irrespective of what Starmer or Farage do.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
There's also the small point that 'Britain' in any of the modern political senses didn't exist in 1066, of course.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
Or Henry Tudor. Back when our borders were, apparently, controlled.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
See also the Glorious Revolution where awkward parts of the army and others were sent well away from London to let things bed down
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
Yes. And as a result we have a hard right party leading by 15 points in the polls
At what point do Woke wankers understand they are leading us to a very British kind of Nazism? You cannot bottle up and silence that fury forever. If we want our liberal democracy to endure, we are going to have to be very illiberal, for about a decade, on all matters to do with migration, asylum, integration, Islam, etc. That way democracy survives, there is no other way
What's more, just as Australia shows you CAN deal with boats, Denmark has shown that you CAN preserve your democracy and exclude the far right from power, if the centrist parties are willing to get suitably tough. But you really do have to be tough: Denmark demolishes ethnic ghettoes. It sends in the bulldozers. It ignores the pleas of lefty EU lawyers and gets on with the task
As a result the Danish far right has been reduced to a rump
The centrist way here seems to be to do stuff they know full well will be provocative to people on both left and right, act utterly bewildered that anyone could possibly think they’re not 100% correct, then sigh knowingly and call people names when those they provoked react.
Yes. Labour's approach closely copies that of the last Tory government, but with an extra and repellent flavour of moral vanity and whining piety - in the manner of @bondegezou
They talk tough, which infuriates a lot of people on the left, but they don't actually do anything, which maddens everyone on the right. And then they accuse everyone but themselves of "racism", which makes millions of people shrug and say "what the heck, so I'm a racist, might as well vote Reform"
Hence the polls
I'm convinced that they all have a mini orgasm every time they can write "racism" in a post. The word no longer has a meaning.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The government is snookered because the only way to stop Farage becoming PM is by doing things that almost no-one in the Labour Party can accept, especially Starmer himself.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .
I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong
Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced
Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.
However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.
There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them
It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/
Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped
Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control
And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether
As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises
An immediate solution would be great, but in real life, some things take a bit of time. The UK public don't support an immediate solution at any cost. For example: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/06/06/7bca7/1 June 2025 "Do you think Britain should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights or should we withdraw from it?" Should remain a member: 51%. Should withdraw from it: 27%.
The British public want a solution that still keeps us in international agreements and which recognises that some people do deserve asylum. The British people reject the abhorrent racism seen from far right agitators and their followers. The British people think, yes, we need to do something about this, but we should do something sensible and uphold our traditional British values.
I'm sure you're right, but we have to recognise that the populist destructive "right" are very successfully weaponising this issue and that drawing the sting must be the overriding priority. And, to be fair, @leon has been prescient about the dangers inherent in this. People who object to large-scale immigration of the type we are seeing have more than a point. No-one voted for this, and it is undermining our democracy from several directions at once. The termites are feasting.
If mainstream democratic politicians can't sort out problems like this, then the demos will turn to others. But with the Conservatives lacking credibility due to the Boriswave, and Labour constitutionally unable to deal with the problem without tearing themselves apart, we are living in tricky times. Straw, Blunkett and Rifkind are right about this - addressing the ECHR may be the least-worst option.
You say "No-one voted for this", but Labour were voted in last year, beating the Tories and Reform UK. It is respecting our democracy to let Labour try the approaches they have laid out.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
Utterly bewildering we ever allowed such a generous system to operate in the first place. And predictably maddening that first the Tories then Labour (until now) have never moved to close it down
My hunch is that this issue is now baked in. The public mood has gone far beyond "the boats" and is now anti-immigration in general, and to a pretty severe degree., and it is probably irreversible, until dramatic changes occur
It's sad. We had a pretty harmonious country, with flaws, until 10-20 years ago. Grotesque ineptitude - or outright treachery - has squandered this inheritance
They never wanted to close it down as the system was operating as intended. We had years of politicians, on inward migration in general, moaning it was too high while doing nothing aside enable it. The moral cowardice of the Blair and Cameron years on migration is stark.
What’s changed ? The public seems to have had enough and the old tactic of just telling everyone they are racist for not being happy clappy about mass inward migration no longer works.
It is ironic that you describe Blair's "moral cowardice" on this issue and yet Farage in his big policy launch speech repeatedly praised Blair for his swift action to remove illegal migrants...
You’re talking about two different things.
I’m talking about Blair’s moral cowardice for enable a huge increase in inward migration while failing to make the case for it and even complaining, as Cameron did, it was too high and they needed to do something about it. While doing nothing.
The case for it? We lacked a workforce in a large areas of the economy. The wave of Eastern Europeans was paraded as a Massive Crisis. 20 years on and nobody is bothered about Poles et al.
Again, as filling the workforce gaps is now seen as treason, we have two choices: 1) A national campaign to get people shagging. Get the birthrate up significantly. Combined with a significant long term investment to train "British" people to be plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers. 2) Successfully deport the "pakis" (note how that word keeps coming back as the label for everyone) and suffer a sharp national decline as patriots fail to train up as plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers and fail to have more babies because nobody wants to shag them
We've had millions of economically inactive people since the 1980s. What should have happened is that those people should have been trained to do the new jobs which were becoming available instead of expecting migrants to do them. But that would have been more difficult and cost more initially. Politicians took this easy route instead of the one they should have done.
Well yes, the politicians that used the windfall of NS oil & gas to pay unemployment benefits, redundancy payments and sickness benefits rather than enact huge retraining schemes should certainly take a lot of the blame.
That's not quite fair - there were YOPs and any number of schemes and retraining.
There are numbers of companies which emerged from the closing down of mines or had dealt with them and were forced to refocus and grew.
Policy Exchange which made up some rubbish about leaving the ECHR not being a problem for NI are being torn to shreds today . Jack Straw who cluelessly supported their view needs to STFU and stop embarrassing himself .
You're very keen that those with a different pov "stfu" - maybe there's something in this free speech malarkey
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The government is snookered because the only way to stop Farage becoming PM is by doing things that almost no-one in the Labour Party can accept, especially Starmer himself.
Having the ability to push through things that traditionally the Labour party won't be happy with was a skill Blair had and managed to keep the plates spinning for a long time. Starmer even with his massive majority has smashed all the plates on the floor at first attempt.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
Yes. And as a result we have a hard right party leading by 15 points in the polls
At what point do Woke wankers understand they are leading us to a very British kind of Nazism? You cannot bottle up and silence that fury forever. If we want our liberal democracy to endure, we are going to have to be very illiberal, for about a decade, on all matters to do with migration, asylum, integration, Islam, etc. That way democracy survives, there is no other way
What's more, just as Australia shows you CAN deal with boats, Denmark has shown that you CAN preserve your democracy and exclude the far right from power, if the centrist parties are willing to get suitably tough. But you really do have to be tough: Denmark demolishes ethnic ghettoes. It sends in the bulldozers. It ignores the pleas of lefty EU lawyers and gets on with the task
As a result the Danish far right has been reduced to a rump
The centrist way here seems to be to do stuff they know full well will be provocative to people on both left and right, act utterly bewildered that anyone could possibly think they’re not 100% correct, then sigh knowingly and call people names when those they provoked react.
Yes. Labour's approach closely copies that of the last Tory government, but with an extra and repellent flavour of moral vanity and whining piety - in the manner of @bondegezou
They talk tough, which infuriates a lot of people on the left, but they don't actually do anything, which maddens everyone on the right. And then they accuse everyone but themselves of "racism", which makes millions of people shrug and say "what the heck, so I'm a racist, might as well vote Reform"
Hence the polls
I'm convinced that they all have a mini orgasm every time they can write "racism" in a post. The word no longer has a meaning.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
Utterly bewildering we ever allowed such a generous system to operate in the first place. And predictably maddening that first the Tories then Labour (until now) have never moved to close it down
My hunch is that this issue is now baked in. The public mood has gone far beyond "the boats" and is now anti-immigration in general, and to a pretty severe degree., and it is probably irreversible, until dramatic changes occur
It's sad. We had a pretty harmonious country, with flaws, until 10-20 years ago. Grotesque ineptitude - or outright treachery - has squandered this inheritance
They never wanted to close it down as the system was operating as intended. We had years of politicians, on inward migration in general, moaning it was too high while doing nothing aside enable it. The moral cowardice of the Blair and Cameron years on migration is stark.
What’s changed ? The public seems to have had enough and the old tactic of just telling everyone they are racist for not being happy clappy about mass inward migration no longer works.
It is ironic that you describe Blair's "moral cowardice" on this issue and yet Farage in his big policy launch speech repeatedly praised Blair for his swift action to remove illegal migrants...
You’re talking about two different things.
I’m talking about Blair’s moral cowardice for enable a huge increase in inward migration while failing to make the case for it and even complaining, as Cameron did, it was too high and they needed to do something about it. While doing nothing.
The case for it? We lacked a workforce in a large areas of the economy. The wave of Eastern Europeans was paraded as a Massive Crisis. 20 years on and nobody is bothered about Poles et al.
Again, as filling the workforce gaps is now seen as treason, we have two choices: 1) A national campaign to get people shagging. Get the birthrate up significantly. Combined with a significant long term investment to train "British" people to be plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers. 2) Successfully deport the "pakis" (note how that word keeps coming back as the label for everyone) and suffer a sharp national decline as patriots fail to train up as plumbers, doctors, chefs, engineers and fail to have more babies because nobody wants to shag them
We've had millions of economically inactive people since the 1980s. What should have happened is that those people should have been trained to do the new jobs which were becoming available instead of expecting migrants to do them. But that would have been more difficult and cost more initially. Politicians took this easy route instead of the one they should have done.
Well yes, the politicians that used the windfall of NS oil & gas to pay unemployment benefits, redundancy payments and sickness benefits rather than enact huge retraining schemes should certainly take a lot of the blame.
That's not quite fair - there were YOPs and any number of schemes and retraining.
There are numbers of companies which emerged from the closing down of mines or had dealt with them and were forced to refocus and grew.
I know, I was on one of them! £40 a week and a video on starting your own business making high end chocolates as I recall.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
Britain has been successfully invaded since 1066. Henry Tudor's invasion, leading to victory over Richard III at Bosworth, must surely count in any reasonable reckoning.
That, like the 1690 invasion, was welcomed by many of the then Governing Class. 1066 effectively wiped out the then Governing Class and replaced it by a pretty brutal New Order.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
Or Henry Tudor. Back when our borders were, apparently, controlled.
Stuarts, in 1603 - albeit a small invasion of upper class type carpetbaggers.
The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum. 2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria. 3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective. 2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal. 3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
About two thirds of asylum applications are made by people who are legally in the UK via other routes, e.g. employment visa. With (2), are you saying these people have to leave the country before applying for asylum?
If point 1 is adopted, your question does not arise. If they are already legally here, why would they need to apply for asylum? If they are here on a short-term basis, then at the end of it they should leave. I am not aware of how normal applications for a visa to work and live here work but that is the policy which should be adopted for everyone ie it is Britain who decides who is let into the country on the criteria it lays out - not by a person claiming persecution which the government is obliged to accept regardless of any other factors.
So, if someone is in the UK legally but their visa is coming to an end, and they face persecution in their country of origin, you think they should travel back to that country and seek asylum from there?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.
The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
The government is snookered because the only way to stop Farage becoming PM is by doing things that almost no-one in the Labour Party can accept, especially Starmer himself.
The fourteen million vote question.
Is there a solution to the boats that a) would work and b) wouldn't have worse knock-on effects and c) is only prevented by Starmer's essential Starmerness?
Clearly, some people think there is, but I'm not convinced. Supposedly respectable papers putting "we can just leave ECHR... it'll be fine" when it probably won't isn't helping resolve that question.
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
The facts suggest that there was rather more control in the past than you seem to think. From the House of Commons Library -
"How has migration to the UK changed over time? The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
That's demand, not control. And rather more recent that 1,000 years.
Let's take the 19th century.
About 1 million Irish people moved to the mainland. Immigrants? Arguably not since the Act of Union in 1801. It was internal migration within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
German immigration amounted to ca 29,000. Then at the end of that century about 120,000 Russian Jews moved to Britain. About 120,000 Polish veterans who fought for Britain remained here after WW2. Then there were the Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis who were invited here after the war. The numbers of Flemings and Huguenots who moved here in earlier centuries were small, both in relative and absolute numbers. Britain did seek to control who could come and was largely effective in doing so. That effectiveness has changed significantly in recent decades for a variety of reasons. And the numbers and types of migrants / asylum seekers have also changed. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that what is happening now is simply a continuation of what has always happened.
Some migration is a good thing. The questions are always is about how much, who comes, what control there is and the effect on existing citizens. It is the failure to address these issues honestly or even think they are worthwhile issues to consider which is behind much of the discontent. And much of the superficial and/or sentimental pretendy solutions and posturing. (Nor do I exempt what I have suggested from this criticism. But nor do I see anything better suggested by any political party.)
Comments
Have you ever considered that immigrants and immigrant communities, in particular those immigrants from less developed and less tolerant countries, are themselves more racist and bigoted than the British people you're condemning for racism and bigotry ?
Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.
Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.
In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.
It's not Jack Straw embarrassing himself
Actually even Cooper is considering reclusing parts of the ECHR and last time I looked she was Labour's own Home Secretary
We went through all of this in the Brexit wars- think tanks claiming that international law meant that the UK could do something it wanted and there would be no pushback. There was always pushback.
And (because I don't know), are HMG's plans about stepping back from the convention itself, or from some British gold-plating? The two are potentially very different.
But please don't start giving the UK Government - or future governments - ideas. I am not sure they are bright enough to have worked out the Tow back solution for themselves and it would be better if they stayed ignorant.
And that clarity needs to start from government.
Both from better information and politicians admitting they've messed up when they've messed up.
The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.
The British public want a solution that still keeps us in international agreements and which recognises that some people do deserve asylum. The British people reject the abhorrent racism seen from far right agitators and their followers. The British people think, yes, we need to do something about this, but we should do something sensible and uphold our traditional British values.
I struggle somewhat with this immigration issue. My natural inclination is to help people who are suffering and the idea of telling someone who has spent everything to escape persecution to "go away and knock next door.... any other door' fills me with horror. Equally the idea of telling someone that they can come because they're fit and strong and can do something the country needs...... like help someone like myself, who needs assistance with care ...... but they can't bring their spouse and children, or even their old granny who will help look after said children is anathema. I don't mind new religious establishments either.
But I'm not keen on having people about who are wearing so much on the heads that I can' only just about see their eyes. I do think that if one moves to a new country there ought to be an element of 'fitting in'... doing what the Romans do.
I can understand people objecting when asylum seekers are put up in hotels that they'd have difficulty in affording themselves, even if the hotels, in reality, aren't providing anywhere near the service they provide normally.
And I do feel sad when I see green farmland turned into housing!
Serco know that they can get any price from the Government, with a bit of profit on top.
So they can outbid anyone on vast swathe of the housing market.
And given that the profit is a percentage, the larger the actual price for the house, the better for Serco. "We only made 20% on the transaction".
The other advantage for Serco is that by going for new built, allegedly good quality housing, they don't get immediately sued for being slum landlords.
But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important.
I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.
1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum.
2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria.
3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)
So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -
1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective.
2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal.
3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.
Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.
If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.
The riots that would result from having to pick up your own takeaway.....
They've certainly weaponised migration against Poland and the Baltic states.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/23/estonia-accuses-russia-weaponising-immigration-europe-borders
Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.
Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.
Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.
Boriswave levels of immigration aren't manageable, as the last few years have demonstrated, but the proposition that we need zero net immigration is, IMO, daft.
Unfortunately, we have a government scared of its own shadow, which seriously inhibits constructive (versus reactive) policy making.
The fact that there's a substantial segment of the population that would lap up living under Putinism is an essential part of its success.
The courts have ordered the Home Secretary to release a psychotic illegal Nigerian criminal, who has committed multiple violent acts in the UK, from detention on the grounds that it is ‘worsening his mental health’.
The gov’t may also have to ‘pay him damages’ for this ordeal.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1962451228182392951?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
And having a go at Reform leaders for being a bunch of shysters and their supporters for swallowing it... It may offend sensibilities, but he's not wrong.
If mainstream democratic politicians can't sort out problems like this, then the demos will turn to others. But with the Conservatives lacking credibility due to the Boriswave, and Labour constitutionally unable to deal with the problem without tearing themselves apart, we are living in tricky times. Straw, Blunkett and Rifkind are right about this - addressing the ECHR may be the least-worst option.
The right to settle in this country, refugee or not, needs to be contingent upon obedience to the laws. This point is obvious, but one that the human rights elite finds hard to understand.
"How has migration to the UK changed over time?
The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating in each year since 1994. Before then, immigration and emigration were roughly in balance, with net migration slightly decreasing the population in most years. Over the last twenty-five years, both immigration and emigration have increased to historically high levels, with immigration exceeding emigration by more than 100,000 in every year between 1998 and 2020."
See https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf.
Between 1964 and 1983 for instance the report says that net migration was negative.
@DPJHodges
“Starmer needed someone to do for him what Darren Jones had been doing for Rachel Reeves at the Treasury, and Jones was seen by the PM as an effective operator, the person said”. That person should be locked up for their own safety.
Reversing that is one of the things Thatcher deserves some credit for.
But don't get me wrong. The bookies have the right fav in Reform for the next GE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxac0wODnGQ
Excellent as ever.
FOR SALE (no longer wanted)
Framed and signed shirt
Going cheap (130 million)
Any offer considered
https://x.com/theberrypub/status/1962424957633261630
Sounds like a much more complicated situation.
The court seems to be saying that he's being kept in prison, when he should already have been released. The Home Office were already trying to find him somewhere that social services consider acceptable. I'd assume if he's just not considered safe, then he'll end up in some secure accommodation, but he's only being released because it was time for him to be released like any other prisoner.
There may be an argument that his asylum claim should be refused, because he's committed a crime, but that's a different argument.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
But you might argue that the stench of decay surrounding the Labour government is building as quickly as it would from a cat in a box killed by the release of poison following the quantum decay of a particle. Sometimes opening the box is just a formality.
We'll just have to wait and see how much of a surprise the exit poll is.
For me it seems to be we are down to Farage puts his foot in it massively and the government appeal to the left to hold on to nurse vote.
There are numbers of companies which emerged from the closing down of mines or had dealt with them and were forced to refocus and grew.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/01/royal-mail-profit-takeover-ids-daniel-kretinsky
Is there a solution to the boats that a) would work and b) wouldn't have worse knock-on effects and c) is only prevented by Starmer's essential Starmerness?
Clearly, some people think there is, but I'm not convinced. Supposedly respectable papers putting "we can just leave ECHR... it'll be fine" when it probably won't isn't helping resolve that question.
About 1 million Irish people moved to the mainland. Immigrants? Arguably not since the Act of Union in 1801. It was internal migration within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
German immigration amounted to ca 29,000. Then at the end of that century about 120,000 Russian Jews moved to Britain. About 120,000 Polish veterans who fought for Britain remained here after WW2. Then there were the Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis who were invited here after the war. The numbers of Flemings and Huguenots who moved here in earlier centuries were small, both in relative and absolute numbers. Britain did seek to control who could come and was largely effective in doing so. That effectiveness has changed significantly in recent decades for a variety of reasons. And the numbers and types of migrants / asylum seekers have also changed. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that what is happening now is simply a continuation of what has always happened.
Some migration is a good thing. The questions are always is about how much, who comes, what control there is and the effect on existing citizens. It is the failure to address these issues honestly or even think they are worthwhile issues to consider which is behind much of the discontent. And much of the superficial and/or sentimental pretendy solutions and posturing. (Nor do I exempt what I have suggested from this criticism. But nor do I see anything better suggested by any political party.)