Given Hancock’s likely election fate who can blame him? – politicalbetting.com

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

They just want to get in illegally. Otherwise they would climb on a plane and fly from Tirana to Stansted. But they don’t do that because that means going through border control and being noticed

Once they are in - they either disperse immediately as @IshmaelZ says - or they wait until they are in our dysfunctional asylum-hotel system then they melt away

I have no confidence that Labour would handle this any better than the inept Tories. Probably worse as they will be philosophically even more disinclined to take the tough unpleasant measures needed

As a nation we have to decide if we want to be generous to all and accept we do not control our borders, or look after our own - which means firm and ruthless control of our borders

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Anyway, in important news:

What do we reckon Starmer will lead on at PMQs today?

I'm working so will miss it, but any thoughts? Will he keep up the pressure on Braverman or demand answers on the postponed Special Fiscal Event?

Labour has opened a new front against Suella Braverman; the FCA has been asked to look at whether her emails would facilitate insider trading.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-referred-financial-watchdog-28386123

ETA imo Starmer should ask why the double standard in withdrawing the whip from Hancock but not Boris.

My guess is that there'll be a "get me out of here" joke in there somewhere...

A huge slaughter in Ukraine yesterday apparently. One of the biggest daily numbers I can remember seeing.

These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of Nov. 2, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1587713150970896388

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.

It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.

Isn't the discrepancy down to different time frames, comparing the current arrivals to resolved cases, which date some years back?

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

As said, that is about asylum seekers directly, which is a subset of those coming to the country.

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.

You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39047787

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.

You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..

As 86% of them are women and the numbers are small anyway perhaps the UK are less forgiving of ill treatment towards women than would be the case in Albania?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.

It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest

70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year

Richard_Tyndall said:

That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

I think you're mixing figures for applications with figures for decisions -- the two can happen a long way apart if there's a backlog, and the authorities aren't necessarily working on a first-in-first-out basis. For instance if they're doing "easy" cases first and most women applicants are legit then they may be disproportionately processing women first, leaving the unprocessed backlog almost entirely men.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.

It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest

70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year

Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.

T**t.

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

A classic of the genre.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

A classic of the genre.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932

Nice strawman.

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.

I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/

And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.

The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.

I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.

Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.

I see (or used to - a lot have vanished over Covid) car washes which I must suspect is an issue, although is in broad daylight so see the points above, and those eastern European women (I guess) begging or selling the Big Issue outside Boots but I haven't pinned down the societal threat yet.

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.

You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..

The country is about half-way down the list of countries according to GDP per head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.

It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest

70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year

Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.

T**t.

Well yes, but Harold Godwinson did not send lifeboats to meet them halfway. Securing the borders is a large part of the job description and he gave it his best shot.

He did although he ultimately set the standard for the following thousand-odd years in success rates.

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.

It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest

70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year

Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.

T**t.

The Normans also moved directly into positions of overlordship and power because they really did invade and conquer.

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.

I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/

And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.

The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.

I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.

Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.

In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.

I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.

bondegezou said:

.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.

It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.

The numbers are reconciliable, I believe, because they cover different time periods: “past two years”, “year ending 30 June 2022” (i.e. 1 July 2021-30 June 2022) and “first half of 2022” (i.e. 1 January 2022-30 June 2022).

No, the increase is in the past two years (70% to 91%). The actual number I used was from 2022. - 91%.

So, we are still in the position where they say that in 2022 91% of applicants were men and 55% of applicants were successful. The only figure that doesn't fall into that timeframe is the 86% of successful applicants which covers an additional 6 months (the second half of 2021). It would require such a massive change in demographics in that 6 months that it seems unrealistic to me.

"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ

I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1587575234697347072

ydoethur said:

Anyway, in important news:

What do we reckon Starmer will lead on at PMQs today?

I'm working so will miss it, but any thoughts? Will he keep up the pressure on Braverman or demand answers on the postponed Special Fiscal Event?

PMQs will open with Tory Whips placing a question about ring fencing the NHS in the coming budget.

Starmer will start up, 2 parts nasal to 3 parts quizzical look.
Some one drives from High Wycombe to fire bomb an Asylum Reception Facility in Kent, next day the UK Home Secretary issues a call to arms about an invasion of our South Coast. Does the Primeminister believe she was right to use that inflammatory language?

{who knows how Sunak replies, but it will be a careful balancing line between he personally would not have phrased it like that, of course, but he recognises the HomeSec was only trying to convey the enormity of the problem we are facing.}

Starmer is now 3 parts nasal to 2 parts quizzical look.
Mr Speaker, When my minister for Bus travel made up Labour Transport Policy on the hoof, I quickly sacked him, the Labour Party democracy then deselected him. In contrast the Primeminster stands shoulder to shoulder with a Home Secretary he is too weak to sack!
{at this moment camera shows a stern Sunak, no longer nervously grinning by now, face down down in his notes shaking his head. The Leader of the House can be seen staring out into the lobby - her mind on a ship at sea she’s Captaining} The outcome is his HomSec speaks for him and the government with “invasion of south coast underway” - indeed, number ten press spokesperson subsequently supported the Home Secretary by adding “significant proportion of people arriving are economic migrants” But could not provide any evidence, or data, to support this - other than we already know, 80% the Tories have now processed from the two year backlog they’ve created, have been allowed to stay.
Is the Primeminister telling us today he believes there is an invasion of our South Coast underway - yes or
no.

Etc etc.

Todays PMQs will be all about trying to make Rishi look weak and error prone for standing by Braverman. Helpfully lowering expectations for Sunak here, this day will be very difficult for him, getting a score draw will be a great result. In Sunak’s favour he can see Starmer’s approach coming a mile off, and no, Starmer won’t have actual question on Hancock and the 350K pay out, Campbell or Fry may have slipped him a quip, he will stick entirely to the Crimes of Braverman so Sunak should be ready with more relevant answers than last week.

PS by the end of this Wednesday Sunak will have announced he’s off to COP, after all. On a Wednesday!

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.

I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/

And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.

The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.

I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.

Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.

In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.

I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.

We are agreeing. But really - you are a veteran and respected PB contributor yet you write the following words, apparently not ironically:

"the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public"

I mean for heaven's sake. Of course they do but they won't. And because we are all satisfied by being outraged at the odd DM article we don't push them to do anything about it. So it's on us really.

'veteran and respected PB'- there's a first time for everything....

And of course they're not. That's why there's so much discontent. The Tories are in government at the moment, and they've been in power for 12 years, and it's mostly on them.

But I don't think it's too naïve to both expect and demand better.

AlistairM said:

A huge slaughter in Ukraine yesterday apparently. One of the biggest daily numbers I can remember seeing.

These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of Nov. 2, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1587713150970896388

Russia has lost more men in the last 3 days (if reports are correct) than the USA did in its entire Afghan war.

AlistairM said:

A huge slaughter in Ukraine yesterday apparently. One of the biggest daily numbers I can remember seeing.

These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of Nov. 2, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1587713150970896388

The last three days have all been exceptionally high: 900, 650, 800. Seems to coincide with the Russians launching a new offensive in Southern Donetsk Oblast, and generally throwing large numbers of the newly-mobilised troops onto the frontline.

Looks like the tactic of throwing poorly-trained and poorly-equipped soldiers into a modern war is having the predictable consequence.

SouthamObserver said:

pm215 said:

SouthamObserver said:

So, basically, this is total government failure. If newspapers can find these people, the government can too.

False comparison -- the newspapers only need to find a comparatively small number to make a worthehile story, and they don't need anywhere near the same standard of evidence to publish it. The government needs to be able to do it for a a sizeable proportion of the people it's trying to find, or it's just a publicity stunt, not a worthwhile dent in the numbers.

How do we know it’s a sizeable proportion of asylum seekers if all we have are anecdotal reports from right wing newspapers based on small numbers?

As I say, I have no doubts that high numbers of Albanians (and others) are coming into the country illegally. I am just less convinced that asylum is renotely likely to be the primary route.

Agreed what we need are facts and numbers, which are thin on the ground.

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ

I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1587575234697347072

No sh!t, Sherlock Goodwin. There’s been several years of it, culminating in the taking down of a Prime Minister almost as soon as she was appointed, after only a brief period of mourning.

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....

First class whataboutery.
Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.

Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.

The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.

TOPPING said:

Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.

I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread:

We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?

Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers

If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.

It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest

70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year

Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.

T**t.

The Normans also moved directly into positions of overlordship and power because they really did invade and conquer.

Coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading The Norman Conquest by Marc Morris and just got to 1086. 20 years after the Conquest, there were bugger all English Lords left and none with any wealth or power. Everything, from architecture to the politics had been dismantled and changed. The fella was ruthless!

Stopping the small boats is very important and Braverman's future is scarcely important at all ⁦@PaulGoodmanCH⁩ https://conservativehome.com/2022/11/02/stopping-the-small-boats-is-very-important-and-bravermans-future-is-scarcely-important-at-all/

TOPPING said:

Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.

Maybe we should have bush-tucker trials to sort out our PMs.

Let's see how badly they want the job....

Andy_JS said:

"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ

I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1587575234697347072

I didn't hear him cringe and whine when it was two decades of banning bendy bananas, mental health rumours about Labour PMs, or gaybashing. And his little pal Alastair Stewart chiming in to boot.

Driver said:

TimS said:

Andy_JS said:

TOPPING said:

Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.

I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions

The answer should be fairly simple to give. Take the bloody thing seriously and resource it properly. Clear the backlog, invest in infrastructure, work more closely with France etc. Stop playing political games and grow up. But that’s for Yvette Cooper to say, as she has - pretty much - been saying.

Great idea. What would they cut to pay for it?

£600 a night hotel rooms?

FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.

That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.

algarkirk said:

FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.

That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. But I'd say it goes beyond government, even. So much stuff in this country just doesn't seem to work very well.

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

A classic of the genre.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932

God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.

If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.

I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.

But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.

People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.

You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.

What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?

FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.

And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?

This is another area where we could do with more balanced debate. Britain has two counteracting challenges:

- A declining ratio between the economically active and inactive / retired population, which is why our health and social care systems are in such a mess
- A shortage of affordable housing, educational and transport infrastructure

Migration helps with the first and exacerbates the second. It differs from increased fertility rates in that it solves the first issue more rapidly but probably exacerbated the second more immediately too (because babies live in existing homes while migrants need their own), but otherwise is pretty similar.

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....

First class whataboutery.
Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.

Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.

The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.

Felix voted Remain.

It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.

Who hasn't accepted it? Of course we accept it. But does that mean we can't point out how it's failing? Does that mean we can't argue that it was sold on a false prospectus? Does that mean we can't lobby for a closer relationship with the EU? Does that mean we can't argue for a vote to rejoin at some point in the future? It would be good to know precisely what limits on our free speech you are advocating so that we can comply.

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....

First class whataboutery.
Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.

Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.

The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.

Felix voted Remain.

It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.

Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.

I also voted Remain.

It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.

It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.

You can only put debate to an end by restricting freedom of speech. Democratic mandates in the UK don't last forever, otherwise the Lloyd George Liberals would be the government.

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.

I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/

Processing times for asylum seekers have massively increased under the Conservatives. Deportations have massively decreased. The Conservatives like to talk about Rwanda and the EHCR, but the problems don't actually appear to be what the rules are. The problems appear to be that the Home Office is unable to run the current system due to cuts in funding and mismanagement. The solution is not inflammatory rhetoric. The solution is putting someone vaguely competent in as Home Secretary.

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

EPG said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....

First class whataboutery.
Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.

Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.

The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.

Felix voted Remain.

It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.

Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.

I also voted Remain.

It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.

It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.

You can only put debate to an end by restricting freedom of speech. Democratic mandates in the UK don't last forever, otherwise the Lloyd George Liberals would be the government.

Constitutional questions need to be resolved one way or the other to allow normal politics to function, otherwise we'd still be fighting the civil war.

williamglenn said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

felix said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....

First class whataboutery.
Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.

Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.

The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.

Felix voted Remain.

It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.

Who hasn't accepted it? Of course we accept it. But does that mean we can't point out how it's failing? Does that mean we can't argue that it was sold on a false prospectus? Does that mean we can't lobby for a closer relationship with the EU? Does that mean we can't argue for a vote to rejoin at some point in the future? It would be good to know precisely what limits on our free speech you are advocating so that we can comply.

You're free to do all of that, but you don't get to claim the moral high ground or complain about division when you are essentially acting as a mirror image of Nigel Farage circa 2005.

Farage was not prominent in 2005, but he certainly wasn't being censored from expressing support for, and pursuing, EU exit based on an old referendum result.

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

bondegezou said:

Slackbladder said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?

Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).

Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

The question is three fold

1) Can we even control immigration
2) Should we control immigration.
3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,

Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“

Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).

Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.

A classic of the genre.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932

God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.

If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.

I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.

But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.

People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.

You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.

What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?

FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.

And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?

you think there aren't enough people here yet?

That is an entirely separate issue anyway. This is about controlling the number, identity and route of entry of immigrants. Basic housekeeping.

But the British public have decided that they don't want to do this. Same with spending more on the NHS, etc.

It is a bogeyman and you should learn to live with it.

algarkirk said:

FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.

That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.

Well, quite. See the Times headline story about the police unable or unwilling to do basic due diligence checks on who they hire. The level of incompetence is both staggering but not surprising.