UK Politics General Discussion

[Tom]

But we took back control of "our laws, borders, and money".

Brexit was a myth that enabled a flood of cheap labour into the hands of the companies that fund the Tories.

Let's see if Labour have the minerals to do any different. Today's sad news of more deaths makes it all the more criminal and urgent.

 

[Poisson]

My main point was, do Labour have the stones to do anything major? Even in the run up to the election a lot of people didn't really know what Starmer actually wanted to stand for.

 

[BarryZola]

I know it's not fashionable in certain circles, but it's true. The apparent speed of immigration and especially the numbers into concentrated areas is just not sustainable, or natural, for any country or area. It was bound to provoke dissent eventually and just putting it down to 'thicko plebs' will not run forever. We're noted as one of the most tolerant countries when it comes to accepting 'others' and that's what I've seen and practiced personally, but every country has a limit. I think we're even starting to reach our limit due to the pure speed of it.

 

[Quantum]

I know it's not fashionable in certain circles, but it's true. The apparent speed of immigration and especially the numbers into concentrated areas is just not sustainable, or natural, for any country or area. It was bound to provoke dissent eventually and just putting it down to 'thicko plebs' will not run forever. We're noted as one of the most tolerant countries when it comes to accepting 'others' and that's what I've seen and practiced personally, but every country has a limit. I think we're even starting to reach our limit due to the pure speed of it.

In fairness this is happening across Europe at the moment. It's the sheer numbers as well. What politicians don't realise is that dumping migrants in poor areas which is often the case has a corrosive effect on the local community. They see migrants getting, accomodation, food and welfare they themselves have struggled to get and it breeds resentment.

Migration should be a natural part of how the world works but the scale and numbers coming in is not sustainable.

 

[Benzin]

Almost as if centuries of Western countries getting involved in the politics of smaller ones is coming back to bite them.

Simple solution is to provide safe routes to negate the traffickers. But like with many other things, it's a solution that no one wants to admit to. Especially when many use it as a political stance.

Can't be anti something if you or someone else actually solves the issue.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I would just use Google translate if I had to and understand I was at least safe from the immediate danger in whatever country I'd come from.

With only £49.18 per week as your only income (you're banned and prevented from working whilst your claim is processed), you'd struggle to purchase a smart phone and a decent data plan to do this, as you're likely going to need to eat.

Adjusted to population size, the UK falls to 20th within EU+ countries for the absolute number of asylum claims received (not even processed). We already take in far fewer than our neighbours.

When you conquer a third of the world, and your language spreads through culture and other soft power exercises, you make yourself an attractive target for people seeking safety. The UK can't both be failing in almost every conceivable metric, and yet have people coming over for "economic migration" only. People seek to claim asylum here because they're more likely to speak even a little bit of English, they're familiar with the culture due to soft power spread, or because they have family ties here.

there has always been illegal immigration since the sixties,

Illegal immigration and asylum seeking are two different issues, but can be related. If you come to this country and seek asylum, you're are attempting to legally migrate using an international mechanism. If your asylum application is denied, and you stay anyway, then you would be considered an illegal immigration. If your application is approved, as a refugee, then you have migrated illegally.

As a British citizen, if you were to go on holiday to Spain and stay for 91, or more, days, take up a job, maybe rent a small flat, all without applying for a visa, you would be an illegal immigrant.

"Illegal immigration" actually only started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In this country, specifically, the British Aliens Act of 1905. For pretty much all of human history, passports and visas haven't existed. The free movement of humans, around their shared planet, hasn't historically been restricted.

Prior to 1968, and Labour's Commonwealth Immigration Act, anyone living in an ex-British colony (1/3 of the world) could enter the UK without control or issue.

The apparent speed of immigration and especially the numbers into concentrated areas is just not sustainable, or natural, for any country or area.

Except that this is literally how British colonialism worked. The US is the prime example, the Status of Liberty literally stands as a monument to the historical approach of letting in anyone who wants to follow the American dream. The country was founded by religious refugees, seeking asylum and a new life somewhere where they wouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. Australia, ironically one of the toughest countries for immigration, also expanded with the influx of migrants during various gold rushes and other colonisation practices. Canada is obviously similar.

The biggest issue we face, presently, with asylum seeking and refugees, is that we're simply not processing asylum applications. The system isn't working, because it's literally not working. If someone's application gets approved, they get leave to remain, if it gets rejected, they get deported. The issue with the Rwanda plan was that we were going to fly over people whose claims had yet to be processed, and assess them in Rwanda. If those claims were approved, they'd remain in Rwanda. If they were rejected, they'd be deported.

The "asylum hotels", the Bobby Stockholm, all of the horror which the red tops go nuts over, are entirely the result of unprocessed claims. People waiting to find out what's going to happen to them. The most recent data available, from 2022, showed that asylum claims were taking (on average) 21 months to process. That's almost two years of people having to wait, not being allowed to work and being ostracised by society. That's almost two years of additional strain on the state (though nowhere near financially as much as ex-offenders, unemployed, etc). The system is creaking because we can't get people through fast enough (resisted making an Hyperia analogy).

If the application system is sped up, and operates how it's meant to, it doesn't matter how many people come over on small boats. If their claim is genuine, or with merit, they will stay. If their claim is rejected, they'll be deported.

At the moment we just have a system of people waiting, literally in a queue, to be processed. Unfortunately our asylum claim processing system isn't a B&M dive coaster, with two stations, it's a Zamperla Nebulaz.

 

[Quantum]

With only £49.18 per week as your only income (you're banned and prevented from working whilst your claim is processed), you'd struggle to purchase a smart phone and a decent data plan to do this, as you're likely going to need to eat.

Adjusted to population size, the UK falls to 20th within EU+ countries for the absolute number of asylum claims received (not even processed). We already take in far fewer than our neighbours.

When you conquer a third of the world, and your language spreads through culture and other soft power exercises, you make yourself an attractive target for people seeking safety. The UK can't both be failing in almost every conceivable metric, and yet have people coming over for "economic migration" only. People seek to claim asylum here because they're more likely to speak even a little bit of English, they're familiar with the culture due to soft power spread, or because they have family ties here.

Illegal immigration and asylum seeking are two different issues, but can be related. If you come to this country and seek asylum, you're are attempting to legally migrate using an international mechanism. If your asylum application is denied, and you stay anyway, then you would be considered an illegal immigration. If your application is approved, as a refugee, then you have migrated illegally.

As a British citizen, if you were to go on holiday to Spain and stay for 91, or more, days, take up a job, maybe rent a small flat, all without applying for a visa, you would be an illegal immigrant.

"Illegal immigration" actually only started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In this country, specifically, the British Aliens Act of 1905. For pretty much all of human history, passports and visas haven't existed. The free movement of humans, around their shared planet, hasn't historically been restricted.

Prior to 1968, and Labour's Commonwealth Immigration Act, anyone living in an ex-British colony (1/3 of the world) could enter the UK without control or issue.

Except that this is literally how British colonialism worked. The US is the prime example, the Status of Liberty literally stands as a monument to the historical approach of letting in anyone who wants to follow the American dream. The country was founded by religious refugees, seeking asylum and a new life somewhere where they wouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. Australia, ironically one of the toughest countries for immigration, also expanded with the influx of migrants during various gold rushes and other colonisation practices. Canada is obviously similar.

The biggest issue we face, presently, with asylum seeking and refugees, is that we're simply not processing asylum applications. The system isn't working, because it's literally not working. If someone's application gets approved, they get leave to remain, if it gets rejected, they get deported. The issue with the Rwanda plan was that we were going to fly over people whose claims had yet to be processed, and assess them in Rwanda. If those claims were approved, they'd remain in Rwanda. If they were rejected, they'd be deported.

The "asylum hotels", the Bobby Stockholm, all of the horror which the red tops go nuts over, are entirely the result of unprocessed claims. People waiting to find out what's going to happen to them. The most recent data available, from 2022, showed that asylum claims were taking (on average) 21 months to process. That's almost two years of people having to wait, not being allowed to work and being ostracised by society. That's almost two years of additional strain on the state (though nowhere near financially as much as ex-offenders, unemployed, etc). The system is creaking because we can't get people through fast enough (resisted making an Hyperia analogy).

If the application system is sped up, and operates how it's meant to, it doesn't matter how many people come over on small boats. If their claim is genuine, or with merit, they will stay. If their claim is rejected, they'll be deported.

At the moment we just have a system of people waiting, literally in a queue, to be processed. Unfortunately our asylum claim processing system isn't a B&M dive coaster, with two stations, it's a Zamperla Nebulaz.

We're not very good at processing claims or deporting people. Many of the claimants are coming from safe countries so surely those claims should be a quick no but it doesn't work like that. It's a failure of consecutive governments but isn't unique to the UK. The sheer numbers coming over just puts extra strain on the system.

Id also like to see this government do something about the numerous forgotten towns which have been left to rot and has been left to local authorities to try and fix.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Id also like to see this government do something about the numerous forgotten towns which have been left to rot and has been left to local authorities to try and fix.

If only there was an influx of people, desperate for a new life and wanting to work and contribute, who could voluntarily join some sort of public work improvement programme...

 

[Benzin]

If only there was an influx of people, desperate for a new life and wanting to work and contribute, who could voluntarily join some sort of public work improvement programme...

Has to be the RIGHT kind of people though.

Don't think Clacton will be at the front of that queue.

 

[BarryZola]

With only £49.18 per week as your only income (you're banned and prevented from working whilst your claim is processed), you'd struggle to purchase a smart phone and a decent data plan to do this, as you're likely going to need to eat.

Adjusted to population size, the UK falls to 20th within EU+ countries for the absolute number of asylum claims received (not even processed). We already take in far fewer than our neighbours.

When you conquer a third of the world, and your language spreads through culture and other soft power exercises, you make yourself an attractive target for people seeking safety. The UK can't both be failing in almost every conceivable metric, and yet have people coming over for "economic migration" only. People seek to claim asylum here because they're more likely to speak even a little bit of English, they're familiar with the culture due to soft power spread, or because they have family ties here.

Illegal immigration and asylum seeking are two different issues, but can be related. If you come to this country and seek asylum, you're are attempting to legally migrate using an international mechanism. If your asylum application is denied, and you stay anyway, then you would be considered an illegal immigration. If your application is approved, as a refugee, then you have migrated illegally.

As a British citizen, if you were to go on holiday to Spain and stay for 91, or more, days, take up a job, maybe rent a small flat, all without applying for a visa, you would be an illegal immigrant.

"Illegal immigration" actually only started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In this country, specifically, the British Aliens Act of 1905. For pretty much all of human history, passports and visas haven't existed. The free movement of humans, around their shared planet, hasn't historically been restricted.

Prior to 1968, and Labour's Commonwealth Immigration Act, anyone living in an ex-British colony (1/3 of the world) could enter the UK without control or issue.

Except that this is literally how British colonialism worked. The US is the prime example, the Status of Liberty literally stands as a monument to the historical approach of letting in anyone who wants to follow the American dream. The country was founded by religious refugees, seeking asylum and a new life somewhere where they wouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. Australia, ironically one of the toughest countries for immigration, also expanded with the influx of migrants during various gold rushes and other colonisation practices. Canada is obviously similar.

The biggest issue we face, presently, with asylum seeking and refugees, is that we're simply not processing asylum applications. The system isn't working, because it's literally not working. If someone's application gets approved, they get leave to remain, if it gets rejected, they get deported. The issue with the Rwanda plan was that we were going to fly over people whose claims had yet to be processed, and assess them in Rwanda. If those claims were approved, they'd remain in Rwanda. If they were rejected, they'd be deported.

The "asylum hotels", the Bobby Stockholm, all of the horror which the red tops go nuts over, are entirely the result of unprocessed claims. People waiting to find out what's going to happen to them. The most recent data available, from 2022, showed that asylum claims were taking (on average) 21 months to process. That's almost two years of people having to wait, not being allowed to work and being ostracised by society. That's almost two years of additional strain on the state (though nowhere near financially as much as ex-offenders, unemployed, etc). The system is creaking because we can't get people through fast enough (resisted making an Hyperia analogy).

If the application system is sped up, and operates how it's meant to, it doesn't matter how many people come over on small boats. If their claim is genuine, or with merit, they will stay. If their claim is rejected, they'll be deported.

At the moment we just have a system of people waiting, literally in a queue, to be processed. Unfortunately our asylum claim processing system isn't a B&M dive coaster, with two stations, it's a Zamperla Nebulaz.

Some good points to consider, thanks. I would just mention on the point of migration going back many years though, that the populations of the USA etc were tiny compared with our modern day. You can't really fairly compare those previous times and today. As for the backlog of asylum cases, a massive part of the hold-up is lawyers insisting on continually appealing failed applications. The vast proportion of currently awaiting cases are appeals. I suppose it's a good money-maker for the lawyers.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

 

[Quantum]

If only there was an influx of people, desperate for a new life and wanting to work and contribute, who could voluntarily join some sort of public work improvement programme...

Ah yes they must all be trained builders architects, town planners etc. We shouldn't need to import labour for these types of jobs if we hadn't got rid of Polytechnic Collages, devalued apprenticeships and told school leavers they must go to Uni to have a chance of earning decent money.

 

[BarryZola]

Yeah, that was great wasn't it. Let's turn places of learning into businesses and get as many punters through as possible, instead of encouraging apprenticeships that had always worked ok. Then now surprisingly there's a skills shortage in things we desparately need like construction and that's used as another excuse for why we need so much immigration. Well played UK, well played. Total joke rip off country.

And I see the cronyism continues unabated with our new set of stooges in government, with Starmer, his wife and members of the cabinet accepting thousands in donations for clothes etc from a donor who ends up getting access to Downing Street for a week when he is not in a position warranting such access. Wonder what other favours one may get that we don't hear about? Not a great look. https://www.ft.com/content/31b8eb75-b869-42d8-9e08-2bb0b1ad8427

 

[Benzin]

Can I see an article about it where I don't have to donate money to a millionaire to?

 

[BarryZola]

Can I see an article about it where I don't have to donate money to a millionaire to?

Not sure. That's the first link I found and it's a reasonably respectable publication in the grand scheme of things, so I thought that would do. It didn't paywall me so hopefully it didn't for you (apologies if it is doing so for others)

Oh, just moved to my PC and it is indeed paywalling (it wasn't on my phone). Here's another: https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-...-followed-after-clothes-donation-row-13216092

 

[Benzin]

Yeah was paywalled for me. I'm dubious these days to the current state of the Times though.

I'm sure the irony of the Tories crying foul over this given the behaviour of many of their MPs over their terms isn't lost on them though. Also bless the SNP for trying to be relevant.

Is typical "I'm rich" crap isn't it? Though I'd imagine quite a few security passes have been issued over the years to those not deserving. Reads very much like Currygate where so desperate to find any method to attack when they could just... I dunno, go for implemented planned policy?



Elsewhere, it's great that the criminal justice system believes that racist abuse online, rioting or protesting (Just Stop Oil) is far worse than noncing. 6 month suspended sentence for Huw Edwards (and a similar sentencing for his accomplice) is the real two tier justice.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Elsewhere, it's great that the criminal justice system believes that racist abuse online, rioting or protesting (Just Stop Oil) is far worse than noncing. 6 month suspended sentence for Huw Edwards (and a similar sentencing for his accomplice) is the real two tier justice.

The sentence which Huw Edwards was given, falls in line with guidelines set out in law and advised by the Sentencing Council.

He plead guilty to an either way offence, and the magistrates court believed that their sentencing powers were sufficient to deal with the case. At the lower court, the maximum penalty that can be given is a 12 month immediate custodial sentence.

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity will always give you 1/3rd off your sentence. It's an encouragement to give quick justice. It stops the courts from being blocked up with lengthy trials and spares any victims from having to make court appearances.

Huw Edwards was charged with having received 41 indecent images. As horrible as his crimes are, he didn't have direct victims and nobody immediately suffered as a consequence of his actions. This doesn't negate the fact that if there weren't people wanting this type of material, it wouldn't exist.

Possession of cocaine may seem like a victimless crime, but the drug is manufactured in awful conditions, people are forced into the production and distribution. The proceeds of drug sales go on to fund further illegal activity. Children are enlisted as drug runners. As much suffering is present within the drug trade, as it is with child sexual abuse material, and sentencing for possession of either illegal material is sentenced at roughly the same level.

The Just Stop Oil protestors, who have ended up with custodial sentences, have broken previous court orders. They haven't shown remorse. It's incredibly likely that if given a community order, or suspended sentence, they will continue to break the law and offend again (ie go on another protest), so they were handed harsher sentences as a result. Many also didn't plead guilty at the earliest available opportunity, giving them the harshest sentences possible.

In the cases where people have been given custodial sentences for inciting hatred online, context is important. If you're inciting hatred in a relatively quiet period, and no one acts in it, you'll get a less harsh sentence. If you're inciting hatred, and encouraging violence, during a time of riots, and it's reasonable to suggest that people followed your instructions, you've caused direct harm and your sentence will be higher.

If Huw Edwards had more material, if he hadn't plead guilty, if he'd been involved in the production of, or distribution of, the indecent material, he would have got longer.

Sentencing isn't just about retribution and punishment, it's also about rehabilitation and protecting the public. Various professional bodies have assessed Edwards and each advised that it would be more effective to monitor him, and rehabilitate him, in the community than in custody. The suspended nature of his sentence means that if Edwards doesn't comply with the Probation Service, or breaks the law again, the custodial part of his sentence will be activated (and he could face further charges for any additional offences).

An immediate custodial term, for Edwards, wasn't in the public interest. He would have served 6 months inside, before being eligible for release at the halfway point. In order to complete the Horizon sexual behaviour programme in custody, you have to have been in for at least three months, you have to have completed it before the final three months of your release, and it takes 3 months to undertake it. This wouldn't be possible. He'd then have 6 months, on licenced supervision in the community, with his probation officer, which also wouldn't give enough time to complete the programme as it takes 9-12 months outside of prison. He would have spent 6 months, working in a prison workshop assembling plumbing pieces, and then been released. He'd have seen his probation officer weekly, for 6 months, and then his sentence served. He wouldn't have been given any opportunity to address his offending behaviour, or to rehabilitate him.

Edwards will now be subject to supervision, by the probation service, for two years. He will have to see his probation officer weekly and then fortnightly throughout. He will be given a Police Offender Manager (for 7 years), to ensure that he is abiding by his sex offender registration requirements, who will also meet with him on a regular basis and will be monitoring his internet connected devices. He will be able to complete the sexual offending treatment programme. He will be far more accountable than if we'd just locked him up.

I don't mean to sound dispassionate, and I apologise if the tone of my post is upsetting to some readers. I'm attempting to explain, and reassure, as much as my professional background will allow me to.

 

[BarryZola]

Another day, more headlines of top Labour personnel accepting 'gifts'. This time from the FA (havn't they got something going on with an independent regulator coming in or something). Anyway, Wes Streeting accepted a package worth over a grand and Starmer's wife and others have also received free tickets (not sure if that was from the FA or not).

'I've Been Outed As A Swiftie': Wes Streeting Laughs Off Row Over Labour Freebies

The health secretary received hospitality from the Football Association to see her at Wembley last month.

uk.news.yahoo.com

Keir Starmer’s wife went to two Taylor Swift concerts for free

Lady Starmer attended a second Wembley concert after watching the star with the prime minister in June

www.independent.co.uk

It's a terrible look after spending years telling everyone how dodgy the opposition party is. After bashing the other lot for years you'd think that the first thing you'd do is make sure you're not accepting these 'gifts' from influential people and organisations as it would just look terrible. I'm sorry, but it's totally out of order and just makes it look like you're open to being influenced when you're accepting goodies from everyone. They just can't help themselves, can they? It's no wonder people continue to say that they're all the same.

 

[Tom]

The difference is these sort of small gifts aren't likely to lead to government decisions such as allowing 700,000 net migration numbers, or pursuing multi-billion pound projects with no economic value.

 

[BarryZola]

It's a slippery slope...

 

[Matt.GC]

I've read many of these over the last few days, and it doesn't appear anything like the dodginess we've seen in recent years has taken place. It's also worthy of note that almost anything, including with innocent intentions, looks a bit crappy in this climate.

It's quite clear that the government are receiving immense hostilities at the moment from journalism on both sides of the political spectrum, who are very unhappy and will do anything to paint them in a bad light. I just don't see much substance to much of this if I'm being honest, unlike Cameron's doggy Greensil dealings, Blair's Formula 1 advertising scandal, Dennis Thatchers foreign coal investments, Sunak profiting from bust investment banks, or just about anything Johnson ever touched or looked at.

That said, as is usual with "foot in it" Starmer, the optics don't look great. Him and his team, and his shadow cabinet, should have been well aware that even the remotest hint of them even cracking a smile whilst spreading doom and gloom and standing on a platform of new found honesty and integrity in politics would lead to media hostilities. And fair is fair, the same media establishments rightly put the last lot through the ringer of scrutiny, whether justified or not. It's sad that trust in politics is so deep at the bottom of the toilet pan that the intricacies of attending a Taylor Swift concert are scrutinised. But it's fair game, we have a free press who are perfectly entitled to question the conduct of politicians, and we have an absolute right as His Majesty's Subjects within a parliamentary democracy to do so as well.