UK Politics General Discussion

[Dave]

They need to stop making the UK such a soft touch and we need to stop the pull And get tough.

An amensty is a terrible idea imo as we have no idea who.most of these people are or Thier backgrounds. Why are we giving asylum to people from safe countries? Why are we allowing people on student visas to abuse the system? No other country in Europe is as soft as we are.

We are in an absolute mess as a country and if you throw in rising borrowing costs, economic stagnation and widening inequality we are heading for a very bad place. Throw in a massively unpopular government and I hate to sound dramatic but I think widespread civil unrest is looking more and more likely. Hope I'm wrong though as it's not good for anyone

1) We are not giving asylum to anyone from a safe country, they have passed through safe countries to get here but we literally have zero official legal routes for people to apply to the UK for asylum and despite what the media tell you arriving on a small boat and claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal under international law.

2) They pass through safe countries because we exported our language and culture when we had an empire, and a lot have family here so the UK is a better fit for these people. Doesn’t mean we have to take them but that’s the draw.

3) We don’t let people on student visas abuse the system. You get the odd one who tries and they make convenient news but it’s rare and if they get caught they go home. Foreign students massively subsidise the UK students education as tuition fees are not capped, the last Tory government tightened student visa rules and now we are seeing universities hit financial hardship (foreign student losses are only part of that picture but contribute). Most other EU countries have a far more relaxed student Visa set-up than the UK as they know it brings them economic benefit.

4) Economy was stagnant, currently it’s the fastest growing of the G7 (still sluggish), as said previous I’m not convinced by this government but no government can change the economy quickly because they have very limited levels to pull.

Just to add to the cost v benefit argument;

An EU migrant to the UK would contribute on average £78,000 more tax then they would take in any benefit (including the NHS) during an average stay

A non EU migrant would contribute £28,000 more tax than they would take in benefit on average.

Widening inequality is a huge problem but blame the billionaires who are currently telling everyone migrants are the problem and look to redistribute wealth away from them to fix that problem. All the newspapers and GB news and reform UK are owned or funded by billionaires so good luck with that little job.

 

[Quantum]

Low skilled migrants are certainly not a net positive and several independent studies have confirmed ithey cost more than they contribute.

High skilled migrants do but we're not talking about them. Most people don't have an issue with high skilled migration if it's targeted and proportionate.

Over 16000 people applied for asylum in 2024 who had been on a student visa at some point so it's clearly being abused

On the economy in general, People and businesses are getting taxed to oblivion with more coming in October in order to plug the 50 billion black hole Labour have created We are heading for an IMF bailout at this rate, we simply can't afford this level of spending.

 

[rob666]

...People and businesses are getting taxed to oblivion with more coming in October in order to plug the 50 billion black hole Labour have created...

You mean the massive financial black hole labour inherited from the Tories don't you?

Appalling fiscal policies in the last couple of years before the last election in the desperate hope that direct bribes would keep them in power.

No fiscal review in their last couple of years in office, and no wonder!

 

[Matt N]

The issue that’s often neglected in the immigration debate, I feel, is that without immigration, our birth rate would not be sufficient to outweigh the death rate and keep our population from stagnating.

As much as people can talk about immigrants coming here, we need immigration to keep our birth rate high enough to outweigh our death rate. Without that, we’ll slip into population stagnation and start to have a severely aging population (even more so than we already have), along with all the issues caused by that.

 

[Squiggs]

The issue that’s often neglected in the immigration debate, I feel, is that without immigration, our birth rate would not be sufficient to outweigh the death rate and keep our population from stagnating.

As much as people can talk about immigrants coming here, we need immigration to keep our birth rate high enough to outweigh our death rate. Without that, we’ll slip into population stagnation and start to have a severely aging population (even more so than we already have), along with all the issues caused by that.

I'm not so sure that stagnating populations is necessarily such a bad thing. In many ways, 'growth at all cost' is a major contributing factor to the precarious situation the country (and indeed the world) finds itself in.

---

Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm full on top of asylum as a topic, but am I right in thinking it still the case that no asylum seeker can work whilst their case is in progress? If so, surely changing the rules here would make sense, as it means that asylum seekers can contribute to the economy from the moment they arrive in the country, rather than having a bizarre period at the beginning where they just have to wait around whilst the taxpayers foot the bill.

In that situation, asylum seekers could still be housed in state run facilities, but allowing them to be economically active would negate the cost issues surrounding those facilities, whilst also potentially filling some of the gaps that we have in our workforce? For example, if we have a trained doctor who is awaiting an asylum decision, it would surely be better that we allow them to practice and help bring down the waiting lists.

 

[BarryZola]

I'm not so sure that stagnating populations is necessarily such a bad thing. In many ways, 'growth at all cost' is a major contributing factor to the precarious situation the country (and indeed the world) finds itself in.

---

Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm full on top of asylum as a topic, but am I right in thinking it still the case that no asylum seeker can work whilst their case is in progress? If so, surely changing the rules here would make sense, as it means that asylum seekers can contribute to the economy from the moment they arrive in the country, rather than having a bizarre period at the beginning where they just have to wait around whilst the taxpayers foot the bill.

In that situation, asylum seekers could still be housed in state run facilities, but allowing them to be economically active would negate the cost issues surrounding those facilities, whilst also potentially filling some of the gaps that we have in our workforce? For example, if we have a trained doctor who is awaiting an asylum decision, it would surely be better that we allow them to practice and help bring down the waiting lists.

The problem with that is that anyone can then basically decide that they want to rock up here by any means necessary and get for all intents and purposes a work visa that'll probably last a couple of years whilst their asylum claim is going through the system (and with subsidised housing if we're still putting them up wherever). If they're lucky, they then get a bonus of being granted asylum on top. It would cause more of a pull for people to come here than there already is.

And the thing with not growing the population enough is that we'll probably be able to pay the pensions of those getting to that age now, but when it comes to being our turn to claim pensions there may not be enough tax-payers paying into the system to pay our pensions. In theory.

Realistically we'll need a decent level of immigration but we need to have some control over who comes in. Preferably people who are ready to contribute to the economy where needed in a meaningful way immediately. People just randomly turning up on boats isn't that.

 

[Tom]

The irony of Brexit is that it has made the United Kingdom noticeably 'less white'. This has been very noticeable in previously 'very white', high-Brexit backing areas like Lincolnshire and Essex. People are noticing their communities visibly changing rapidly.

Legal migration, largely made up of cheap labour imported en masse by the Conservative Party post Brexit, has become conflated with the relatively small number of people coming in illegally on boats. They are significant drain of our already bankrupt finances, but it is actually the near one-million net legal migration encouraged by the Conservative Party (and challenged very little by Labour) that is what is causing most of the current tensions.

Meanwhile the left-liberal delusion, now double-headed by Corbyn as well as the Greens, is that everything is fine and we can accept almost anyone and everyone without any kind of consequence.

 

[Matt N]

I'm not so sure that stagnating populations is necessarily such a bad thing. In many ways, 'growth at all cost' is a major contributing factor to the precarious situation the country (and indeed the world) finds itself in.

The key problem with it is that if less people are born, you have less future taxpayers paying for the pension pots of a much larger older generation.

Eventually, it will get to a point where older people requiring benefits and pensions outweigh working age people to pay for them. We’re arguably already on that road even with immigration, so goodness knows where we’d be without it!

Pensions are a ticking time bomb that are going to become a very contentious topic in the future, I feel, and that would be even worse without skilled immigration.

That’s not to say I believe in uncontrolled migration. I think safeguards and strong borders exist for a good reason. But I’m just trying to espouse the reasons why immigration is not a wholly bad thing and why it’s necessary.

 

[BarryZola]

If you think pensions are bad, don't think about who pays for housing when the generations who never had a chance to buy a home all get to retirement age and whatever measly pension might be left is not going to cover their housing costs. And social housing won't magically appear to stick all those who used to rent privately into for free now they're not earning. So many ticking time-bombs and some of them don't really bare thinking about.

 

[Tom]

The key problem with it is that if less people are born, you have less future taxpayers paying for the pension pots of a much larger older generation.

Eventually, it will get to a point where older people requiring benefits and pensions outweigh working age people to pay for them. We’re arguably already on that road even with immigration, so goodness knows where we’d be without it!

Pensions are a ticking time bomb that are going to become a very contentious topic in the future, I feel, and that would be even worse without skilled immigration.

That’s not to say I believe in uncontrolled migration. I think safeguards and strong borders exist for a good reason. But I’m just trying to espouse the reasons why immigration is not a wholly bad thing and why it’s necessary.

Japan has been in population decline/recession for years. There simply needs to be someone that will say: if you don’t want immigration, then this is the price you pay. Reduced services, pensions, etc.

The problem is democracy.

Pensions (and pensioners) have become elements that no one dare touch, as they are determine election results. The paradox is that these groups are typically the most xenophobic.