Anything Political


Recommended Posts

“The 100,000 figure is a Conservative party estimate, and is not reliable. It is based on a number of assumptions about a hypothetical returns agreement, including that the UK would be part of an EU quota system even though it is not in the EU, that the UK would be “forced” to relocate migrants rather than contribute financially (as is an option for EU member states), and that the quota system would relocate all asylum applicants arriving in the EU among member states.”

 

From https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-forced-to-accept-100000-migrants/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

The  EU rules are there for anyone to research, under said rules a  quota system, based on population would mean 100k given the present levels of immigration. The Tories quoted it but the figures stand up. At PMQ Starmer could not deny it.

Under the proposals the numbers (not specific but quoted as %), given are minimums! and mandatory (Poland and Hungary are/were holding it up) Though I must admit reading the commissions report is mind numbing with the amount of gobbledegook.

However you're quite in that the figure is not reliable and as a non member state it could be much higher.

 

I did say the figure was extrapolated and as such there are a number of 'whatifs' to be considered it's not straightforward. Principally do we get a good deal, a bad deal or no deal at all? And what if we fail?

 

Also worth pointing out is the non-member agreements so far proposed, apply to readmission states i.e taking them back in after refusing entry.

We must also consider the fact the quota policy we're discussing does not as yet exist. The EU may not even agree it among themselves, Poland is decidedly not happy, never mind doing a deal with the UK. Until it does , any deal Starmer seems to think he can setup is, at the moment, just pie in the sky.

 

Starmer has sat on the fence so long he's not sure which side to come down on. What is he proposing? he's the one who raised the possibility of a a deal but as I said, what if an agreement can't be reached, what then?

 

Everything of course is open to interpretation but, and again it's a big but, if we get the same deal there is no hiding the fact the sums come out the same no matter which side does the calculating. It could be a minimum, it could be a maximum.

One thing we can say is as a non member we cannot have or expect the same deal as the rest of the EU.

 

The solutions is glaringly obvious but he has yet to mention it. Sunak has brought it up a time or two  but he won't be around long enough to do anything about it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2023 at 8:48 AM, letsavagoo said:

Suella Braverman sacked. Next PM?

She's an african/Indian opportunist..

 

Who cares.. I do, but what's the point.. people aren't wiseing up.

 

Jumped on Reform at 500/1 about 9 months ago

now 150-1, sold some on exchanges at 250-1 to 140-1 made £800 all to charity.

As things worsen I expect the price to drop.. still sitting, my integrity says don't sell.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/16/2023 at 2:42 PM, DJ360 said:

I'm not prepared to define all small boat arrivals as illegal because clearly traffickers, and the lack of safe  legal routes contributes to some migrants' decision making .

Because you’re not prepared to accept it, doesn’t make them legal. I’d accept the facts you mention as mitigation but nothing more. If you desire something, really really want it but you can’t afford is it okay then to steal it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to post something about the recent annual migration statistics for a few days now, but It's all too much of a faff on the phone and I'm still not too comfortable sitting at the P.C. for any length of time with my new knee.. still here goes.

 

Firstly, @letsavagoo

 

I think we're into semantics here Let's.

 

Of course I don't advocate stealing.

 

All I'm saying is that it is inevitable in my view, due to the nature of the situation for many refugees/asylum seekers *

(* Delete as applicable), that the boats will carry a mix of people. 

 

Whilst the Govt. deems them all 'Illegal', simply because their method of arrival is not not considered 'legal', it doesn't follow that at least some of them don't have a valid case for being considered as genuine asylum seekers/refugees.

 

I'm in favour of 'stopping the boats', for the humanitarian reasons trotted out by many, even Braverman.  To whit, the safety of those on the boats, and the closing down of the trafficking 'industry'.

 

However, the relentless focus on 'The Boats', as a major issue, is in my view both a distortion of the facts (They really do represent a small fraction of migrants) and a clear 'Dog Whistle' tactic designed to stir up the 'frothers' on the right, and attract votes.

Once again last week or whenever, I heard the same '3% of the total' applied to Small Boat arrivals by some TV commentator, compared to total migration, though admittedly it's hard to find that corroborated online.

 

We've had various figures trotted out by all sides, but it's really very difficult to 'get behind', what is really happening.. even from the Govt's own published figures.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics#how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year-including-visitors

 

There are however a couple of very stark facts emerging from all of this, which really are down entirely to the actions, or inactions of the current Tory Govt.

 

1. Effects of Brexit.

 

Brexit ended the principle of 'Freedom of Movement' by EU citizens between member states, which was intended as and mostly in reality a mechanism for workers to follow opportunities.  It was very far from the uncontrolled 'invasion' of our borders by 'forriners', as portrayed by liars such as Farage et. al. It's also conveniently forgotten that many many Brits took the opportunity to seek work in the EU. And finally, there was NOTHING in the Freedom of Movement principles which in any way prevented the UK from ejecting,or refusing entry to undersirables/criminals etc., of any origin.

 

The above was highlighted hilariously last week when for some inexplicable reason, BBC News decided that it would be informative to do a 'Vox Pop' piece from that nest of 'illegals'.. Windsor, in the Royal County of Berkshire...  A couple of people in the street expressed views ranging from "I've always voted Conservative, but never again..", to a more frequent and resigned  "Well..they're doing their best..". However, the real gems emerged from interviews with members of the local Conservative Club.  One chap in perticular eagerly recalled his Brexit desire to 'Put a big sock in the Channel Tunnel', thus revealing the depth of his ignorance and the height of his xenophobia.  The same clown went on to declare that we are now getting immigration under control, but that "We couldn't do anything about it until Brexit". Once again confirming his monumental ignorance of the facts.  I was left wondering whether the BBC genuinely thought the piece might inform the debate, or whether they just wanted to set a trap for the smugly ignorant denizens of much of our country.

 

The idea that we were no longer 'able to control our own borders' was pure propaganda by Brexiteers and only given any reality by the abject failure of the Govt. to fund a properly organised and effective Border Force. In fact evidence points to cuts, rather than increases in funding and staffing of Border Force from 2010.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17913781

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/border-agency-cut-too-many-staff-watchdog-claims-7952446.html

 

etc...

 

Right..knee hurts too much... I'll be back after a break.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope your knee heals  soon and stops giving you gyp Col...

 

27 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Once again last week or whenever, I heard the same '3% of the total' applied to Small Boat arrivals by some TV commentator, compared to total migration, though admittedly it's hard to find that corroborated online.

 

 The quoted site is somewhat ambiguous, a macro view if you like of all arrivals with scant reference to illegal entry.

 

In the year ending June '23 0ver 52,000, a rise of 17%, 'irregular' migrants' arrived here 85% of those via small boats.

It notes small boats have been the predominant recorded method of entry for irregular migrants since 2020 when entries via this route increased rapidly and detections on other routes declined (likely in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 https://tiny.cc/#

 

I expect the government to start crowing about reducing the boat arrivals any day now, but I suspect any reduction will be due more to the winter weather than any official policy. Also with many Albanians being sent back they can legitimately claim a reduction overall but it's really only smoke amid mirrors.

 

Not sure the Freedom of Movement is relevant when the larger proportion of immigrants are from countries not part of that agreement. With reference to illegal immigration Brexit is unlikely to be the culprit. 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

In fact evidence points to cuts, rather than increases in funding and staffing of Border Force from 2010.

 

The report in the Independent is from 2012 - more than 10 years out of date, as is the BBC article!

 

Perhaps we can see a more accurate account here: https://tiny.cc/#

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brew said:

The quoted site is somewhat ambiguous, a macro view if you like of all arrivals with scant reference to illegal entry.

 

Well exactly.  This is the Govt's own site quoting Home Office statistics, yet it presents a complex picture from which it is difficult to extract real trends. It reads like a profit and loss account which starts by simply comparing arrivals to departures, before examining categories of migrants etc.  However, it also highlights the true complexity of the issue and pulls the rug from under the 'Send 'Em All Back' brigade.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

In the year ending June '23 0ver 52,000, a rise of 17%, 'irregular' migrants' arrived here 85% of those via small boats.

It notes small boats have been the predominant recorded method of entry for irregular migrants since 2020 when entries via this route increased rapidly and detections on other routes declined (likely in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

I'm not disputing the above and clearly the Trafficking needs to be stopped, but as I've previously said, those figures are small compared to the total arrivals.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Not sure the Freedom of Movement is relevant when the larger proportion of immigrants are from countries not part of that agreement.

 

It is relevant because prior to Brexit, many of our Labour Market demands, especially in areas such as Health, Social Care, Hospitality and of course seasonal Agri/Horticultural work were met via EU Freedom of Movement.

Once that stopped, as I have pointed out several times previously, we shifted to recruiting from the Middle/Far East. That produces migration of people who are more 'obviously foreign', more likely to bring dependents and arguably less likely to return home than EU workers. Both serious 'Own Goals' for the Brexiteer mind set.

 

However, I'd squarely blame our need for the above recruitment on successive Govts who have failed to ensure proper pay and sufficient 'home grown' training, especially in Health and Social Care. Privatisation of Care has only exacerbated this by introducing a profit motive which further sucks cash away from provision, training and wages. It is a simple fact that Tory Privatisation and general de-funding of Public Services points to them being the major culprits.

 

At this point, I may as well throw in a further cause of immigration to the UK, i.e., Study.  Of course we can argue that it's a 'good thing', that people want to come and study at our World Renowned Universities, but what has really happened to our HE sector is yet another version of Tory Privatisation.  Uni's now make a loss on teaching UK students, and are therefore incentivised to admit Foreign Students.  It's just become yet another 'business opportunity', which the Tories are very unlikely to see any need to fix.

 

As for numbers employed in Border Force:

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The report in the Independent is from 2012 - more than 10 years out of date, as is the BBC article!

 

Again.. that is precisely the point.  The Tories reduced border force funding, staffing and thus capability from 2010, but then many of them and their fellow travellers set about blaming everyone but themselves for what they defined as 'uncontrolled borders'. We've seen the Home Office and Border Force running to catch up since  and failing.

 

In summary, the Tories have had 13 years in which to grip, Migration, Workforce Planning, Training, Higher Education Funding etc., etc.. but the actions required, I.E., adequate funding and regulation of education, training and public services conflict directly with their obsessions with cuts, deregulation and privatisation.

 

Which is why we are where we are, with everything broken.

 

It also why the Tories, in the run up to the election, continue to focus on the relatively minor issue of 'The Boats', as they try to appeal to their natural voter base and ignore everything that they promised to do, everything that they have failed to do and everything they have broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. Thanks for the good wishes re: the knee.  It is coming right slowly, but seems to be suffering from the cold weather and a few 'post op' issues which are taking longer to resolve than was the case with the first one.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm not disputing the above and clearly the Trafficking needs to be stopped, but as I've previously said, those figures are small compared to the total arrivals.

 

Not so, 85,000 is the total of illegal entries for the year, I'm not counting legal entrants. My point its that 85% came by boat

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Once that stopped, as I have pointed out several times previously, we shifted to recruiting from the Middle/Far East

But they were actively recruited and not counted as illegals, i can't see how they factor into this discussion.

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The Tories reduced border force funding, staffing and thus capability from 2010,

Agreed but the need and demand for more did not become apparent for another nine years, in 2010 there were no boat crossings and therefore there was no requirement for the numbers or infrastructure we need today. In 2010 we were part of the EU and the Freedom of Movement mandate, why would we want a massive border force when illegal entry was minimal?

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

However, I'd squarely blame our need for the above recruitment on successive Govts who have failed to ensure proper pay and sufficient 'home grown' training, especially in Health and Social Care.

A moot point but I agree with the criticism of privatisation though I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the phrase 'obviously foreign'

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

In summary, the Tories have had 13 years in which to grip, Migration, Workforce Planning, Training, Higher Education Funding etc., etc.. but the actions required, I.E.

 

We are now way off beam and into general criticism of Tory policy.  The topic is immigration, we can't lump every aspect of fiscal policy into one pot.

Again in 2010 the need for massive investment in the border force did not exist, we can't say  "ah yes but worrabout universities"...

 

The boats a minor issue? Most folks I know would I'm sure disagree and consider it rather more than a 'minor' issue both from the point of view of the population and the poor sods so desperate they risk their lives to get here.

 

That we cannot sustain the number coming here is fairly obvious and the only proper solution I can see  is to remove the factors that make them leave home. 

i said it before if they have full bellies, shelter and safe environment they will in all probability stay put.

Sunak has raised this point at the Grenada conference. Starmer seemingly has no idea...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

Not so, 85,000 is the total of illegal entries for the year, I'm not counting legal entrants. My point its that 85% came by boat

 

Can you point to your source for this?  It doesn't align with any immigration figures I can find in Govt's own reports.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

But they were actively recruited and not counted as illegals, i can't see how they factor into this discussion.

 

Because, the debate which erupted last week was not just about 'irregular' arrivals, which the Govt. seems to have no answer for ( and which I suspect they don't WANT to solve before the election, since they see it as a voter winner),but also about the increase in LEGAL migration, which many people are equally unsettled by and not just for reasons of xenophobia.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

Agreed but the need and demand for more did not become apparent for another nine years, in 2010 there were no boat crossings and therefore there was no requirement for the numbers or infrastructure we need today.

 

Of course there was..hence the outcry over cuts at the time!  We were struggling to stop people coming in stowed away on freight vehicles, or even via airports etc.

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

In 2010 we were part of the EU and the Freedom of Movement mandate, why would we want a massive border force when illegal entry was minimal?

 

Because not everyone coming here was from the EU. And nobody said we needed a 'massive' Border Force.  We needed an adequate one.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the phrase 'obviously foreign'

 

Simply meaning that most EU citizens are 'Caucasian', whereas most middle and fare eastern citizens aren't and thus they are more visible to those who are bothered by skin colour.

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

We are now way off beam and into general criticism of Tory policy.  The topic is immigration, we can't lump every aspect of fiscal policy into one pot.

 

But this is entirely the point.  The reason that the Tories are struggling with LEGAL immigration, which was the subject of just as much debate as the boats last week.  And they are struggling because their privatisation, cuts to education and training etc..all central planks of their Neo Con economic 'thinking', have created Labour Force shortages. Those same ideologies prevent them from applying long term solutions without either spending public money, OR requiring business to spend money.  They are notoriously reluctant to do either,

hence their reliance on other measures, such as increasing the supply of work visas for people from the middle and far east..AND allowing companies to pay them less than UK workers.

Can you not see the contradictions? It is one part of Tory ideology which prevents them from solving problems which offend other parts of their ideology!

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

That we cannot sustain the number coming here is fairly obvious and the only proper solution I can see  is to remove the factors that make them leave home. 

i said it before if they have full bellies, shelter and safe environment they will in all probability stay put.

Sunak has raised this point at the Grenada conference. Starmer seemingly has no idea...

 

I could not agree more with your first sentence.  This is not just a UK problem and migrants are coming from numerous countries for a variety of reasons, but we need a concerted INTERNATIONAL effort to minimise the factors causing migration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Can you point to your source for this?  It doesn't align with any immigration figures I can find in Govt's own reports

 

Certainly : http://tiny.cc/75egvz (In the year ending June 2023, there were 52,530 irregular migrants detected entering the UK, up 17% from the year ending June 2022. 85% of these arrived via small boats.)

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

for ( and which I suspect they don't WANT to solve before the election, since they see it as a voter winner)

Which really doesn't fly. A greater 'vote winner' would be a working solution before an election. Voters will go for positive action rather than some pie in the sky promise they know may never happen.  

And I dispute people have a problem with workers recruited from abroad to the same degree as illegals.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Of course there was..hence the outcry over cuts at the time!  We were struggling to stop people coming in stowed away on freight vehicles, or even via airports etc.

True there were a few doing things like creeping through the tunnel and in trucks etc but it hardly amounted to more than a minimal level. It did not require small ships at millions of pounds a pop to patrol the channel or setup facilites on the French coast and ports. The French were also playing a much more proactive part.

 

Every organisation that sees some trimming, redundancies or reductions will see an outcry. In 2010 the numbers of irregulars was so small they weren't even recorded - records start in 2018 when  there were only 29 illegal boats crossing and 81 in 2019. The cuts you mention were warranted at the time and spending has been hugely increasing over the years as demand made it necessary.

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But this is entirely the point.  The reason that the Tories are struggling with LEGAL immigration, which was the subject of just as much debate as the boats last week

Not so, the point is illegal immigration, and drifting into different fiscal policy is merely muddying the water.

 

Migrant workers rather than being discouraged are, as far as I can see, much in demand in agriculture and many famers have appeared on  TV news to say so. The old saw of working for peanuts has long gone

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2023 at 11:48 AM, DJ360 said:

Whilst the Govt. deems them all 'Illegal', simply because their method of arrival is not not considered 'legal', it doesn't follow that at least some of them don't have a valid case for being considered as genuine asylum seekers/refugees.

Sorry Col but my view on this is far more black and white. If their arrival isn’t legal then by definition they are illegal immigrants. No shades of grey. If they do have a valid case for coming here (and let’s not kid our self’s, many don’t) then they should use the legal route and if that proves difficult, hard, impossible (delete as applicable) then I don’t see this as a valid reason to flaunt the law and enter illegally. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DJ360 said:

This is not just a UK problem and migrants are coming from numerous countries for a variety of reasons, but we need a concerted INTERNATIONAL effort to minimise the factors causing migration.

 Which is the point I'm making. Sunak raised it in a speech at the Granada meeting of 50 heads of government. Sadly i think it fell on deaf ears as did the Armenia and Balkan situation which were  the prime reasons for the meeting.

 

 

14 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Because not everyone coming here was from the EU. And nobody said we needed a 'massive' Border Force.  We needed an adequate one.

 

 

A point I missed. The Border Force did not come into being until 2012. Up to that point the there was a mishmash...

 

From Wiki: 

In 2005, the border enforcement functions of HMCE were transferred (along with the organisation responsible for them) to HMRC; but in 2008 they were again transferred (at least in part) to the new UK Border Agency of the Home Office,[13] which due to various failings was itself disbanded in 2012, whereupon a new UK Border Force was established with border enforcement responsibilities and powers.

 

My point to this is there were 25,000 employees in the old setup and still failing. Today we have less than half and whilst maybe not perfect seem to be at least competent in what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Sorry Col but my view on this is far more black and white. If their arrival isn’t legal then by definition they are illegal immigrants. No shades of grey. If they do have a valid case for coming here (and let’s not kid our self’s, many don’t) then they should use the legal route and if that proves difficult, hard, impossible (delete as applicable) then I don’t see this as a valid reason to flaunt the law and enter illegally. 

 

I repeat, once more, that I support the stopping of 'the boats'.

 

However, it seems that Govt. has given up on that and has now decided to gather up the 'Boat People' and ship them off to Rwanda.  James Cleverly our latest Home Secretary is there as I type..trying to (re)establish the 'safety' of Rwanda.

One reporter stated rather tellingly that so far, the UK has managed to send three Home Secretaries, but no Migrants, to Rwanda....

 

I agree that many boat arrivals may not have a case for Asylum, but that doesn't mean none do. Quoting 'legal' routes means little or nothing to me, since trhey are hardly clear, simple or efficient.

 

I suspect it means even less to some who are desperate enough to pay traffickers huge sums and make a perilous journey.

I don't think we can assume that they know what we know or that whatever knowledge they have is not easily pushed aside by the 'promises and assurances' of traffickers.

 

The UK has a number of country specific programmes around for e.g., Ukraine, Hong Kong and so on..  but the general principle is that Asylum Seekers should stay in the first safe destination they reach.  The Gov.UK information says nothing about how they are supposed to subsist while they make an application to the UK Asylum system, which in itelf is notoriously slow. Below, the Govt. view:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#what-safe-and-legal-routes-does-the-uk-offer

 

From which:

Quote

Those who wish to claim asylum should do so in the first safe country they arrive and typically those fleeing humanitarian disasters remain in the region in which they have been displaced. There are no visa routes to enable people to claim asylum in the UK from overseas – just as there are no ways to apply for asylum from outside many other countries, such as Sweden or Germany.

 

And the information from from 'Right to Remain', which sets out the process.

 

https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/claimasylum/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2023 at 11:48 AM, DJ360 said:

I'm in favour of 'stopping the boats', for the humanitarian reasons trotted out by many, even Braverman. 

I think that what the government hoped would happen was that the first few boatloads to be actually sent to Rwanda would signal real intent and deter the remainder from attempting a crossing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Brew said:

 Which is the point I'm making. Sunak raised it in a speech at the Granada meeting of 50 heads of government. Sadly i think it fell on deaf ears as did the Armenia and Balkan situation which were  the prime reasons for the meeting.

 

I broadly agree, but it's taken Sunak and the UK an awfully long time to begin to talk about 'global' migratory pressures, which affect us all in one way or another.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

A point I missed. The Border Force did not come into being until 2012. Up to that point the there was a mishmash...

 

From Wiki: 

In 2005, the border enforcement functions of HMCE were transferred (along with the organisation responsible for them) to HMRC; but in 2008 they were again transferred (at least in part) to the new UK Border Agency of the Home Office,[13] which due to various failings was itself disbanded in 2012, whereupon a new UK Border Force was established with border enforcement responsibilities and powers.

 

My point to this is there were 25,000 employees in the old setup and still failing. Today we have less than half and whilst maybe not perfect seem to be at least competent in what they do.

 

Whilst I agree that the picture re: both staffing, funding and organisation of our Border Control/Migration systems has been somewhat muddy since 2010, I'm not convinced that the present arrangements are either sufficient, or competent. The processing of Asylum Applications is far too slow, which results in both successful and unsuccessful applicants becoming 'trapped' in a system which is costly, socially divisive etc.

 

Returning to the Migration figures released a couple of weeks ago...

 

The major debate then was not about  'The Boats', which as I said Govt. seems to have given up on but for its Rwanda efforts, but the levels of LEGAL migration.

 

 

On 12/4/2023 at 4:10 AM, Brew said:
On 12/3/2023 at 11:52 PM, DJ360 said:

But this is entirely the point.  The reason that the Tories are struggling with LEGAL immigration, which was the subject of just as much debate as the boats last week

Not so, the point is illegal immigration, and drifting into different fiscal policy is merely muddying the water.

 

Migrant workers rather than being discouraged are, as far as I can see, much in demand in agriculture and many famers have appeared on  TV news to say so. The old saw of working for peanuts has long gone

 

You seem determined to ignore LEGAL migration, and its ramifications., especially with regard to Govt. policies on Employment and Training. So let's just set 'The Boats' aside for now and see what Cleverly and Co come up with.

 

So back onto LEGAL migration. This was the BIG migration story a couple of weeks ago, and again this week as Govt. tries to respond.

 

I think we can deal with Agricultural work easily enough.  Migrant Agricultural workers as I understand it, tended to come from Europe and to follow the work according to the seasons.  When the work disappeared, so did they, in pursuit of work elsewhere. 

Let's not forget that much of that Migration, was part of the Freedom of Movement enabled by the EU, and in my view so idiotically misrepresented and unceremoniously dumped, after Brexit, along with many other benefits. Eitherway, that aspect of migration was largely accepted and suited both the migrants and the farmers. Let's not get into the'moral' aspects at this point.

 

So now.. onto other elements of LEGAL migration.

 

It's all here, in the Govt.'s own words.

 

Quote

3.1 Work

There were 321,101 grants to main applicants on work visas, 45% higher than in the year ending June 2022, largely due to increases in the ‘Skilled Worker’ visas.

‘Skilled Worker’ visa grants have increased by 34% (+17,610) in the past year to 69,421. ‘Skilled Worker – Health and Care’ visa grants have increased over two and a half times (+157% or +74,096) to 121,290 compared with the previous year

The latest increase is in part due to the expansion in late 2021 for ‘Care Workers and Home Carers’ and ‘Senior Care Workers’. In the year ending June 2023, ‘Care Workers and Home Carers’ comprised around 50% of visas granted under the ‘Health and Care’ visa category.

Indian nationals were the highest nationality granted on both these route

 

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. The above partly caused by Brexit and partly by the failure of Govt. to ensure sufficient Education and Training of 'Home Grown' workers.  It's not good enough to try to push this issue into a siding by labelling it as 'other Fiscal Policy'. It's all part of the picture and I repeat, again, that it reveals a fundamental tension between the Tory obsession with cutting public spending and keeping wages and taxes down, as against the need to recruit qualified staff into all fields, but especially into Health and Social Care.

 

Don't forget that Govt. ACTIVELY promotes low pay for migrants, which will of course contribute to continuing low pay for Home Grown workers.

 

It goes further. Not only are their thinking and their policies chaotic, but they have admitted to allowing 'unregistered' 'Agencies', to recruit and to fraudulently obtain Work Visas, in many cases, either for unqualified people, or for matching up supposed 'dependents' to people to whom they are not related.  This whole scandal reminds me very much of similar scandals allowed by Tory failure to regulate Privatised versions of formerly Public Sector agencies. Too many in all areas to go into here.

 

Cleverly has come up with some changes, but it's obvious to me that they just shift part of the migration issue, back to the Workforce Education, Training and Recruitment issue.

They still won't address the fundamental problem.. because they are ideologically trapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, oldphil said:

I think that what the government hoped would happen was that the first few boatloads to be actually sent to Rwanda would signal real intent and deter the remainder from attempting a crossing.

 

That may be true, but it works on the assumption that the majority of arrivals have no asylum case.  If they believe they have a case, they will continue to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Asylum system, which in itelf is notoriously slow.

 

Actually it stands comparison with other countries. the average time is between six months and a year with a success rate of 75% 

Those taking longer are probably the ones dumpimg their identification papers in the sea. 98% of the boat migrants have no means of proving who they are or where they come from.

Germany average 9 months, Austria and Belgium 18 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then everyone is too slow. 

If countries had a swift way of either accepting, or rejecting and removing applicants, maybe those who inhabit the shady middle ground would be less inclined to 'try it on'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Then everyone is too slow. 

If countries had a swift way of either accepting, or rejecting and removing applicants, maybe those who inhabit the shady middle ground would be less inclined to 'try it on'.

 

It's a gamble, those who will 'try it on' know that with a 75% success rate the odds are very much in their favour. There is also the fact a refusal does not preclude them making numerous follow up applications which. with the benefit of experience, increase their chances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Don't forget that Govt. ACTIVELY promotes low pay for migrants, which will of course contribute to continuing low pay for Home Grown workers.

Not sure how you make that out. everyone has the right to the legal minimum and we've just seen it announced skilled  migrant workers offered over £38,000

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

ou seem determined to ignore LEGAL migration, and its ramifications., especially with regard to Govt. policies on Employment and Training. So let's just set 'The Boats' aside for now and see what Cleverly and Co come up with.

Well illegal immigration and control of the boats was the topic to start with.

You seem to be determined to widen the subject to include unrelated polices that give you more scope to criticise the HMG.

By increasing the scope of the discussion we lose focus on the problem until we are bogged down in a paralysis of analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not sure how you make that out. everyone has the right to the legal minimum and we've just seen it announced skilled  migrant workers offered over £38,000

 

Not quite true.

 

UK recruiters were allowed to offer migrants 20% below UK rates for specific jobs. not entirely sure how that worked, but a blessing for Private Care Home profitability

 

The £38000 figure is a MINIMUM salary for migrant recruits, designed, sort of, to reduce migrant recruitment by keeping it for higher skilled workers.  I don't think you'll find too many Care Assistants getting such a salary, so it's just a reversal of a failed policy but with nothing put in place of it.

 

The ONLY way to stop the requirement to recruit from abroad, is to Educate and Train at home.  Govt has failed to grasp that nettle..long term, so until they do the problems will continue.

 

Cleverly's latest U turns and sticking plasters are all rather neatly described here, but he, like the rest of his bunch still fail to see the Elephant in the Room.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-12-04/cleverly-to-announce-tougher-foreign-workers-rules-after-migration-spike

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...