UK Politics General Discussion

[BarryZola]

That’s a big misunderstanding of our political process, if a government had to resign every time they lost a vote (they didn’t lose the winter fuel one, they just decided to change the parameters due to political pressure), then we would be going through governments at a rate of 1 a year on average. It’s clear governments fall when either they lose a vote of no confidence or lose a vote on the budget which is a defacto VoNC.

That's not what I was saying. I was just suggesting that as a person, as the leader of your party, if you can't even get your two important things passed through because your own party members are voting against them then just as a person you should hold your hands up metaphorically and say "You do it then". You should be able to get your whips to get your party member behind you in votes like that even if they don't totally agree with it (I know that sounds wrong but it's the way that it usually works in our system).

Obviously I wasn't suggesting that Labour should give up power, just that if Starmer had anything about him he would say "Look, I can't work without the support of my own party when I need it, so I'll go and do something more worthwhile". It's all about the moral fabric of people.

 

[Dave]

That's not what I was saying. I was just suggesting that as a person, as the leader of your party, if you can't even get your two important things passed through because your own party members are voting against them then just as a person you should hold your hands up metaphorically and say "You do it then". You should be able to get your whips to get your party member behind you in votes like that even if they don't totally agree with it (I know that sounds wrong but it's the way that it usually works in our system).

Obviously I wasn't suggesting that Labour should give up power, just that if Starmer had anything about him he would say "Look, I can't work without the support of my own party when I need it, so I'll go and do something more worthwhile". It's all about the moral fabric of people.

But again every party leader has had these losses, Thatcher (before poll tax), Blair and Cameron certainly did.

I’m not saying the disability plans where not dumb and I question the advice given at the time, I’m just saying it’s not a standard we have ever held other leaders to.

And neither policy was a major policy as they were not in the kings speech as far as I remember, all their major legislative items are currently passing through parliament.

 

[BarryZola]

No, they weren't major policies announced in the King's speech, that's fair, but they did become massive issues publicly and they were embarrassing U-turns to have to make early on in their leadership. Reeves was even reduced to tears in parliament (no, I don't buy a personal issue thing being responsible for that). I think the changes to PIP etc was announced in the Spring Statement too. And yes, you are right about this happening with other leaders too, but I'm not a fan of those people morally either. I suppose the very top echelons of politics generally attracts certain types of people.

 

[Dave]

No, they weren't major policies announced in the King's speech, that's fair, but they did become massive issues publicly and they were embarrassing U-turns to have to make early on in their leadership. Reeves was even reduced to tears in parliament (no, I don't buy a personal issue thing being responsible for that). I think the changes to PIP etc was announced in the Spring Statement too. And yes, you are right about this happening with other leaders too, but I'm not a fan of those people morally either. I suppose the very top echelons of politics generally attracts certain types of people.

I think the U-turn added to her stress but it’s well documented the speaker had a right go at her just before PMQ’s and she did have a personal issue, I believe it because the right wing press dropped it quicker than they normally would have done. For sure the u-turn probably added to it all.

The u-turns were embarrassing but again we can’t run parliament on vague ideas on when failed legislation becomes a VoNC. I agree they have been worryingly iffy in the 1st year, some of that is bad decision making, a lot of it is bad comms, and it worries me that Farage might get in because of their missteps but at the moment in my constituency it’s either going to be Labour or reform so I won’t have any choice but to vote Labour because reform will destroy this country just as MAGA is destroying America.

 

[DiogoJ42]

Although I agree the OSA is bad legislation if you think this is of higher consequence than human rights I fear the phrase turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

Don't care. I want The Tavern back.

 

[rob666]

Taking cash...

 

[Dave]

So to add to the crazy part of Reforms big plan is to offer migrants £2500 if they leave voluntarily. The current government offers £3000 for the same….

Absolute tools

 

[BarryZola]

How about we get an agreement with the French that we can have British 'migrant' police semi-permanently stationed across stretches of the French coast to destroy the dighies as soon as they hit the water, or before, if they can catch them? I feel our own forces would be more inclined to do a proper job than the French. And/or offer a large bounty to any group who successfully destroys these dinghies before they get dangerously far out to sea? Get the French locals involved. just throwing ideas out there. Could be done alongside other schemes.

 

[jon81uk]

And/or offer a large bounty to any group who successfully destroys these dinghies before they get dangerously far out to sea? Get the French locals involved. just throwing ideas out there.

Because the sort of people who would take the bounty would actually be trying to murder them not just leave them in France, they would destroy the boat and watch the occupants drown.

 

[Dave]

How about we get an agreement with the French that we can have British 'migrant' police semi-permanently stationed across stretches of the French coast to destroy the dighies as soon as they hit the water, or before, if they can catch them? I feel our own forces would be more inclined to do a proper job than the French. And/or offer a large bounty to any group who successfully destroys these dinghies before they get dangerously far out to sea? Get the French locals involved. just throwing ideas out there. Could be done alongside other schemes.

It’s international maritime law that prevents slashing the dingies except in certain circumstances. You can’t deliberately put lives at risk, there is video of French police slashing dingies if they get them in very low depth water and can do so without risking their own safety.

Much like laws government aircraft’s if you don’t obey international law other countries can then stop all your ships entering their sovereign waters which obvious would be disastrous. So even British police patrolling the French coast wouldn’t slash a boat unless they were within the rule of international law.

Interestingly it’s another reason why Reforms plan won’t work, if we left all the international laws on asylum and tried to then fly planes over EU airspace to send migrants back the EU countries would be legally required to not give those planes permission to enter their airspace, which would make the journey difficult and expensive at best, or impossible depending on the destination.

 

[BarryZola]

I hear you guys.

Anyway. After reading some of the numbers this morning, I think it might be worth just having a one-off 'amnesty', for lack of a better word. Just grant everyone currently here claiming asylum permission to stay all in one stroke of a pen, just to get rid of the back-log in claimants.

It's apparently costing us around £2 Billion a year just in hotels to house people seeking asylum. God knows how much we're spending on processing, lawyers, interpreters, food etc etc just on the current ones. When you consider that around half of asylum claims are given the thumbs up at the first time of asking and then around 70% are then approved on appeal, hardly anyone is being denied anyway.

It doesn't stop the problem of people just turning up here on dodgy dinghies, but it goes some way to sorting some of the costs to the tax-payer in the immediate future. The hotels are cleared out and the asylum seekers who aren't working can go and try to find a job.

A couple of issues I see with this though, is that it might encourage people to keep coming in the hope of the same happening in future, and if people can't find decent work then they'll be relying on the state again to some degree for housing or benefits.

 

[Quantum]

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

 

[BarryZola]

I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I'm not sure the amnesty is a terrible idea when you consider the costs of not having one. If we're honest, anyone claiming asylum is free to roam the streets from their hotel for a couple of years anyway by the time their claim and appeal finally gets denied. That's a couple of years to have done whatever terrible deeds you think they're going to do anyway. And when their appeal gets denied they'd just slip into the underworld and go missing if they're as nefarious as you're suggesting. So not having the amnesty doesn't make much difference in real life.

But, if you have the amnesty you can pretty much start from scratch and have proper detention centres and make sure you know where everyone is when new people start arriving. Plus, they can be assessed properly and quickly because there's no backlog anymore, and if anyone needs sending back home or anywhere else that can be done much more easily. This hotel thing, the whole cost and not knowing where anyone really is half of the time will go on for many years otherwise.

You might disagree with the idea, but I don't think it's fair to just call it a terrible idea when you consider the s**t that we're in at the moment.

 

[jon81uk]

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.

Do you have proof we are giving asylum to those from "safe" countries? On what measure are we a soft touch? Can you provide a comparison with other countries to prove we are softer?

 

[Quantum]

Do you have proof we are giving asylum to those from "safe" countries? On what measure are we a soft touch? Can you provide a comparison with other countries to prove we are softer?

I'm in France currently, very nice place. If the French were as soft as we are there wouldn't be the number of boat crossings we currently have. The French don't put up asylum seekers in hotels for starters.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are in the top five places people claim asylum from. There are also significant numbers from Albania. If your from a safe country it shouldn't even be an option to claim asylum as thee are legal visa routes. You also shouldn't be able to claim on a student visa either as it's an abuse of the system.

 

[jon81uk]

I'm in France currently, very nice place. If the French were as soft as we are there wouldn't be the number of boat crossings we currently have. The French don't put up asylum seekers in hotels for starters.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are in the top five places people claim asylum from. There are also significant numbers from Albania. If your from a safe country it shouldn't even be an option to claim asylum as thee are legal visa routes. You also shouldn't be able to claim on a student visa either as it's an abuse of the system.

Pakistan had a war earlier this year which likely is driving people to come here, especially as they probably already have family here who likely settled in the UK 50 years ago. They are generally coming on a visa and then claiming asylum after. But again given the number of migrants that came to the UK from India & Pakistan in the last 100+ years I don't think it is a surprise this is continuing as many will have family connections to the UK but not to many other countries due to the old British Empire stuff.

I do think the continuing reference to "hotels" is designed to make it sound like they are living in luxury when in reality many of the hotels would have closed down otherwise and are in poor condition, they are just being used as detention centres really, its not a significant difference to using a purpose built centre.

Do you have proof that France hasn't repurpose hotels to house asylum applicants awaiting processing? As the stats show otherwise.
According to https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/france/reception-conditions/housing/types-accommodation/ over 45,000 accomodation places are in emergency accommodation for asylum seekers (hébergement d’urgence dédié aux demandeurs d’asile, HUDA). Some of these places are in hotel rooms.
The reception and accommodation programme for asylum seekers (programme regional d’accueil et d’hébergement des demandeurs d’asile, PRAHDA), managed at the national level. It consists of housing, in most cases in former hotels, for 5,328 persons who have applied for asylum or who wish to do so and who have not been registered.
Here is the same page about the UK https://asylumineurope.org/reports/...ption-conditions/housing/types-accommodation/

 

[Quantum]

I genuinely don't think you should be coming on a Visa and claiming asylum imo. It's also.not our job to accommodate everyone the simple fact is we can't afford it. We can take some genuine applicants but we need to realistic in the numbers we can accommodate. That's just my opinion.

If you think there isn't an issue here then we can just crack on fine. I'm sure the general public will be thrilled to accept rising numbers and rising costs..

 

[Plastic Person]

I do think the continuing reference to "hotels" is designed to make it sound like they are living in luxury when in reality many of the hotels would have closed down otherwise and are in poor condition, they are just being used as detention centres really, its not a significant difference to using a purpose built centre.

Yes, I think the semantics here deliberately rile up people who associate a hotel with leisure or opportunity. Imagine living indefinitely in a former Holiday Inn with hundreds of other people - many fleeing war zones and autocracy and awaiting a decision on their future - while dozens of men linger outside waiting for the chance to burn your temporary home down. Perhaps preferable to your previous situation, yet hardly relaxing.

In a former professional life, I sometimes worked adjacent to a refugee population, which was an eye-opening and humbling experience. The majority of these individuals were decent and just wanted an opportunity to start a new life and work. Some were crippled by enormous anxieties and PTSD, having been persecuted in the past by authorities. A few were manipulative and trying to game the system. In general, they just reflected any sample of any populace, only in limbo. Given the intensity of the current situation, a discourse exacerbated in the past decade by social media, I would argue that a stringent amnesty would be the right thing to do - politically, economically and ethically.

 

[jon81uk]

I genuinely don't think you should be coming on a Visa and claiming asylum imo. It's also.not our job to accommodate everyone the simple fact is we can't afford it. We can take some genuine applicants but we need to realistic in the numbers we can accommodate. That's just my opinion.

If you think there isn't an issue here then we can just crack on fine. I'm sure the general public will be thrilled to accept rising numbers and rising costs..

I don't think we are accomodating everyone? Given per head we take the seventeenth largest intake compared to other EU countries.

"Compared with other European countries, the UK received the fifth largest number of asylum seekers in 2024 (108,138) and the seventeenth largest intake when measured ‘per head of population’." from https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...in-the-uk#how-does-the-uk-compare-with-the-eu

 

[DiogoJ42]

Here's an analogy:

What if you decided, out of charity, to house a homeless person in your spare room?
Now what if every homeless person in town heard about this, and turned up on your doorstep the next day?
Nomatter how good your intentions, you have neither the space nor resources to help them all. Somewhere, a line has to be drawn, for purely logistical reasons.