Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
Interesting piece on the BBC about 'taking back control' of immigration. Turns out that we have the immigration that we do because the government chooses it while they ramp up the anti immigration rhetoric, with the small boats accounting for a tiny fraction of the numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
smn159 said:
Interesting piece on the BBC about 'taking back control' of immigration. Turns out that we have the immigration that we do because the government chooses it while they ramp up the anti immigration rhetoric, with the small boats accounting for a tiny fraction of the numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
The Government lying about about something whilst maintaining their own agenda?!?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
It's truly pathetic isn't it but will work on a few morons...
smn159 said:
Interesting piece on the BBC about 'taking back control' of immigration. Turns out that we have the immigration that we do because the government chooses it while they ramp up the anti immigration rhetoric, with the small boats accounting for a tiny fraction of the numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
I genuinely believe they don’t want to fix immigration, they simply want to weaponise it and to some degree they have succeeded, goaded on by Reform. It’s a serious issue in this country and across Europe, it requires grown up conversations and sensible, practical measures and policies. Getting away from the ‘invaders’ rhetoric deployed by the hard of thinking right will be a start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
andy_s said:
Britain files under 'things I wish I'd done twenty years ago' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/25/ft...
"Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour. In a more dangerous and contested world, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is more vital than ever. And nuclear delivers cheaper, cleaner home-grown energy for consumers."
I suppose you could criticise the laggardly timetable of the Dreadnought project but the subs are being built and it is feasible they will be launched on schedule. I don't understand why he's dragged civil nuclear power into the conversation, it has practically no relationship with the nuclear weapons programme or submarine reactor business. If he wants to boost civil nuclear power he should tender for a package deal of replacements for those NPPs recently closed or due to close shortly; piecemeal construction of EPRs is getting the UK nowhere."Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour. In a more dangerous and contested world, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is more vital than ever. And nuclear delivers cheaper, cleaner home-grown energy for consumers."
smn159 said:
Interesting piece on the BBC about 'taking back control' of immigration. Turns out that we have the immigration that we do because the government chooses it while they ramp up the anti immigration rhetoric, with the small boats accounting for a tiny fraction of the numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. And people thinking they are is one of the bigger issues we have when it comes to people being idiots.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
Controlled immigration is not the same as anti-immigration.
It is portrayed that way for political point scoring only.
Murph7355 said:
smn159 said:
Interesting piece on the BBC about 'taking back control' of immigration. Turns out that we have the immigration that we do because the government chooses it while they ramp up the anti immigration rhetoric, with the small boats accounting for a tiny fraction of the numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. And people thinking they are is one of the bigger issues we have when it comes to people being idiots.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
Almost as if they believe that voters are idiots and will lap up the Rwanda nonsense, thinking that this will 'fix' it.
Controlled immigration is not the same as anti-immigration.
It is portrayed that way for political point scoring only.
The small boats numbers are insignificant compared to the government issued visas, but that's where they and the media are directing peoples attention and anger.
The fury and frothing about the courts, Rwanda and tearing up human rights agreements is ludicrous in this context
James6112 said:
Unfortunately it will be on 2 May with the locals. Was hoping he would fight it which would have put it back a bit following a recall etc. Never mind. S600BSB said:
James6112 said:
Unfortunately it will be on 2 May with the locals. Was hoping he would fight it which would have put it back a bit following a recall etc. Never mind. A good day to bury bad news!
Tory annihilation in the local elections.
Losing an MP, not a big deal.
smn159 said:
We have controlled immigration, and the govt is using that control to increase the numbers of people coming here. Reducing those numbers would have significant impacts on some sectors, notable universities and the care sector, which could be addressed by increased funding - but they've chosen to increase the visa numbers rather than tackle this - a political choice.
The small boats numbers are insignificant compared to the government issued visas, but that's where they and the media are directing peoples attention and anger.
The fury and frothing about the courts, Rwanda and tearing up human rights agreements is ludicrous in this context
Frothing is always ridiculous (including one's own). The small boats numbers are insignificant compared to the government issued visas, but that's where they and the media are directing peoples attention and anger.
The fury and frothing about the courts, Rwanda and tearing up human rights agreements is ludicrous in this context
But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
Blue62 said:
I genuinely believe they don’t want to fix immigration, they simply want to weaponise it and to some degree they have succeeded, goaded on by Reform. It’s a serious issue in this country and across Europe, it requires grown up conversations and sensible, practical measures and policies. Getting away from the ‘invaders’ rhetoric deployed by the hard of thinking right will be a start.
Their brightest sparks have come up with a social media campaign in Vietnam to deter illegal migrants.https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/national/2420750...
All part of their masterplan to end the party. Such ineptness can only be on purpose.
Murph7355 said:
Frothing is always ridiculous (including one's own).
But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
This is a bit of a thought jungle to justify the nonsense we have ended up with. But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
Most people don't distinguish between people arriving across the channel and those arriving at an airport - even the Government didn't in the past when it said it wanted to get net migration below 100,000 people a year. That target has been dropped so now there is no target at all, but when the overall net migration figures are released they are released as 1 number, not a number crossing the channel and a number arriving via a visa.
You say the scale of one against the other is irrelevant - it's not, because the small boats are taking up a huge amount of political time and capital, and a huge amount of money, for what is a very small number of people. Look at the amount of money already committed to Rwanda - nearly £400m even before 1 asylum seeker has been sent there. It's entirely disproportionate, and means other, more important issues, are not getting the attention they deserve because the government keep driving down a dead end focusing on one thing at the expense of what really matters to people - cost of living, productivity, wages, energy costs, etc.
Condi said:
Murph7355 said:
Frothing is always ridiculous (including one's own).
But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
This is a bit of a thought jungle to justify the nonsense we have ended up with. But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
Most people don't distinguish between people arriving across the channel and those arriving at an airport - even the Government didn't in the past when it said it wanted to get net migration below 100,000 people a year. That target has been dropped so now there is no target at all, but when the overall net migration figures are released they are released as 1 number, not a number crossing the channel and a number arriving via a visa.
You say the scale of one against the other is irrelevant - it's not, because the small boats are taking up a huge amount of political time and capital, and a huge amount of money, for what is a very small number of people. Look at the amount of money already committed to Rwanda - nearly £400m even before 1 asylum seeker has been sent there. It's entirely disproportionate, and means other, more important issues, are not getting the attention they deserve because the government keep driving down a dead end focusing on one thing at the expense of what really matters to people - cost of living, productivity, wages, energy costs, etc.
'Immigration' isn't the issue for most people but they do see that housing tens or hundreds of thousands of non working people, with the potential of family members joining them, is contributing to those issues that do bother them.
It's all very well the coffee coloured, ideal world champagne socialists in Godalming or Cheadle Hulme wittering on about diversity and being a welcoming nation. Talk to people around the country utterly pissed off with dodging potholes, a lack of affordable housing, an NHS treatment farce and councils with no money indulging themselves with pet schemes only their mates seem to want.
When people are told there's no money, it's only reasonable for them to question where the money that does exist is being spent. £7M a day on housing immigrants. Food, warmth, shelter (to higher standards than those enjoyed by millions of UK residents) medical treatment, phones and pocket money for these people? That's provided. OK, that's fine. Quite understandable. Can't see the problem.
Unreal said:
Add to your list of things that I think are worrying people - housing, crime and public services.
'Immigration' isn't the issue for most people but they do see that housing tens or hundreds of thousands of non working people, with the potential of family members joining them, is contributing to those issues that do bother them.
It's all very well the coffee coloured, ideal world champagne socialists in Godalming or Cheadle Hulme wittering on about diversity and being a welcoming nation. Talk to people around the country utterly pissed off with dodging potholes, a lack of affordable housing, an NHS treatment farce and councils with no money indulging themselves with pet schemes only their mates seem to want.
When people are told there's no money, it's only reasonable for them to question where the money that does exist is being spent. £7M a day on housing immigrants. Food, warmth, shelter (to higher standards than those enjoyed by millions of UK residents) medical treatment, phones and pocket money for these people? That's provided. OK, that's fine. Quite understandable. Can't see the problem.
Great fanfic. Would read again.'Immigration' isn't the issue for most people but they do see that housing tens or hundreds of thousands of non working people, with the potential of family members joining them, is contributing to those issues that do bother them.
It's all very well the coffee coloured, ideal world champagne socialists in Godalming or Cheadle Hulme wittering on about diversity and being a welcoming nation. Talk to people around the country utterly pissed off with dodging potholes, a lack of affordable housing, an NHS treatment farce and councils with no money indulging themselves with pet schemes only their mates seem to want.
When people are told there's no money, it's only reasonable for them to question where the money that does exist is being spent. £7M a day on housing immigrants. Food, warmth, shelter (to higher standards than those enjoyed by millions of UK residents) medical treatment, phones and pocket money for these people? That's provided. OK, that's fine. Quite understandable. Can't see the problem.
Condi said:
Murph7355 said:
Frothing is always ridiculous (including one's own).
But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
This is a bit of a thought jungle to justify the nonsense we have ended up with. But these are two separate things.
You can be all for controlled immigration, whilst also wanting laws tightened up to attempt to prevent illegal immigration/people trafficking. Indeed I would suggest a lot of people really want both.
The scale of one against the other is entirely irrelevant.
Most people don't distinguish between people arriving across the channel and those arriving at an airport - even the Government didn't in the past when it said it wanted to get net migration below 100,000 people a year. That target has been dropped so now there is no target at all, but when the overall net migration figures are released they are released as 1 number, not a number crossing the channel and a number arriving via a visa.
You say the scale of one against the other is irrelevant - it's not, because the small boats are taking up a huge amount of political time and capital, and a huge amount of money, for what is a very small number of people. Look at the amount of money already committed to Rwanda - nearly £400m even before 1 asylum seeker has been sent there. It's entirely disproportionate, and means other, more important issues, are not getting the attention they deserve because the government keep driving down a dead end focusing on one thing at the expense of what really matters to people - cost of living, productivity, wages, energy costs, etc.
We're simply not going to cope with that are we? We have neither the housing nor the public service capacity.
So if you maintain the idea that there needs to be legal and illegal migration then what do you do about the illegal migrants? On the basis that we are not allowed to send them back to France, and we're not allowed to send them back to their countries of origin (if we can even figure out what those are after they have tossed their papers in the channnel) then the only answer so far has been Rwanda.
The Rwanda solution is not really about dealing with people who have actually crossed, its about trying to deter large numbers from following them. In that context the cost per migrant of sending them out there is not really an accurate measure.
Its obviously more than a bit flawed and equivalent to pushing water up hill legally but it seems to me that nobody who is bleating about it is actually putting forward a practical or workable alternative. So very British to complain like a 2 year old but offer no alternative solutions ! Whether you believe it will work as a solution is a different debate but because its not actually operating it hasn't really been tested IMO. We don't actually know whether it will deter people from getting in a boat or not.
The number of legal migrants is an irrelevant red herring. We can change the rules to restrict those numbers if it suits us. Plainly it doesn't at the moment.
Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 26th March 14:58
Wombat3 said:
If you decide that there is no longer such a thing as illegal immigration then the obvious risk is that migrants will start arriving by the ferry load, not just in small boats. Germany saw an influx of over 1M when it opened its borders IIRC. There appears to have been some regret about doing that in hindsight.
We're simply not going to cope with that are we? We have neither the housing nor the public service capacity.
So if you maintain the idea that there needs to be legal and illegal migration then what do you do about the illegal migrants? On the basis that we are not allowed to send them back to France, and we're not allowed to send them back to their countries of origin (if we can even figure out what those are after they have tossed their papers in the channnel) then the only answer so far has been Rwanda.
The Rwanda solution is not really about dealing with people who have actually crossed, its about trying to deter large numbers from following them. In that context the cost per migrant of sending them out there is not really an accurate measure.
Its obviously more than a bit flawed and equivalent to pushing water up hill legally but it seems to me that nobody who is bleating about it is actually putting forward a practical or workable alternative. So very British to complain like a 2 year old but offer no alternative solutions ! Whether you believe it will work as a solution is a different debate but because its not actually operating it hasn't really been tested IMO. We don't actually know whether it will deter people from getting in a boat or not.
The number of legal migrants is an irrelevant red herring. We can change the rules to restrict those numbers if it suits us. Plainly it doesn't at the moment.
Your point about Rwanda and nobody having a better idea is not only immature but also quite wrong. There’s no magic solution, but implementing sensible, obvious and functional measures might see some improvement. The current lot have cut back on border forces, coastal patrols and not engaged fully with the French or the EU, I’ll stick my neck out and say that reversing that trend and dropping batsWe're simply not going to cope with that are we? We have neither the housing nor the public service capacity.
So if you maintain the idea that there needs to be legal and illegal migration then what do you do about the illegal migrants? On the basis that we are not allowed to send them back to France, and we're not allowed to send them back to their countries of origin (if we can even figure out what those are after they have tossed their papers in the channnel) then the only answer so far has been Rwanda.
The Rwanda solution is not really about dealing with people who have actually crossed, its about trying to deter large numbers from following them. In that context the cost per migrant of sending them out there is not really an accurate measure.
Its obviously more than a bit flawed and equivalent to pushing water up hill legally but it seems to me that nobody who is bleating about it is actually putting forward a practical or workable alternative. So very British to complain like a 2 year old but offer no alternative solutions ! Whether you believe it will work as a solution is a different debate but because its not actually operating it hasn't really been tested IMO. We don't actually know whether it will deter people from getting in a boat or not.
The number of legal migrants is an irrelevant red herring. We can change the rules to restrict those numbers if it suits us. Plainly it doesn't at the moment.
Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 26th March 14:58
t ideas like Rwanda might be a start Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff