The UKAR politics thread

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
User avatar
starbuck
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 9:35 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by starbuck »

Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 12:08 am
starbuck wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 8:39 pm
This situation to me highlights another failure of the European Union and illustrates just how fragile that union is when tested. Genuine asylum seekers should be processed at the point they enter the EU. You could have agreed entry points in Italy, Greece etc manned by staff from each country in the Union to process the applicants as quickly as possible…
The UK could even be a partner if we wanted to.
As for the definition of safe and legal routes - quite a simple one:

By ‘safe and legal’ route, it means the formal sanction by the UK of journeys to the UK – e.g. where a visa is granted or available for the journey or the person is permitted to travel to the UK without a visa.

Anything less than that is not a safe and legal route.

People hiding in lorries (I think it’s “artics” rather than “Arctics”, but happy to be corrected) or drowning in the Channel are not safe and legal routes.
I wasn't asking for a definition, I was querying when we had the safe and legal routes open as you have said in a few posts they should be reopened

I was also querying if this was the same time that people were hiding in artics?(thanks for the correction of my auto correction)

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

Oh I see, my apologies - well I suppose that it’s instructional to have the definition so that the definition of what is “safe and legal” is set out. That’s what needs to be reopened.

There’s no clear cut date-by-date answer because it’s been death by a thousand cuts. The U.K. has incrementally reduced access and closed safe and legal routes (and thus there’s been an incremental increase of people seeking to enter through unusual and unsafe routes). For instance; now, there are none, back “when they were hiding in artics” there were *some* safe and legal routes, but they were significantly reduced/restricted (which resulted in a commensurate increase in people using unsafe and unusual methods such as hiding in artics).

These routes have gradually been shut down or restricted or reduced since before the Tories came to power, but the Tories have sharpened the decrease/restrictions since 2010 when immigration started to become an electoral vote-winner.

That decrease went all the way to 31st Dec 2020 where they were pretty much completely stopped.

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

The legal and asylum system isn’t currently working, that is one problem. It needs to be addressed that when you come here you don’t automatically get a mobile phone, £40 per week, free hotel accommodation, legal representation, free access to health care and education whilst the application process takes place.

France branded the UK last week as an “Elderado” for migrants and again yesterday by (quote from BBC) “making itself less economically attractive for illegal migrants.”

They have no doubt a lot of the problem is down to people taking the pick of where they want to start a better life rather than seeking refuge from persecution.

The tragic details in the BBC highlight the risks people are going to, as the perception is there are more job and financial opportunities in the UK.

I don’t know how anyone “truthfully” applying for Asylum through a new visa process would expected to be accepted on the basis of wanting a better job and a better education for their children.

cg_341
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun 09 Aug 2015, 1:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by cg_341 »

Question to those that have such a large issue with economic migration; why is it a bad thing?

Is the problem that "they're taking our jobs"? I.e. they're taking jobs that should be filled by natural-born British citizens?

Or is it another issue? Perhaps "they're all on benefits and a drain on society"?

I really don't know, honestly, so I'd welcome some (fact-based) clarity.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

I’ve already told you, FGR2, that £40 per week, accommodation etc that this is because the Government rules are quite clear - they are not allowed to work whilst their application is dealt with. This is supposed to take six months but I believe (I’d need to check though) that the majority now take longer.

What are they supposed to live on (and how) for six (or likely more) months if they are forbidden from working?

The only solution I can see to that particular issue is to get them working, surely?

And let’s be honest, £40 per week is absolute peanuts. It’s almost insultingly low. Just for contrast, minimum wage is, what, around £300 per week?

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

I agree £40 isn’t a lot, but multiply that by 27,000, then have accommodation costs (some in hotels), then maybe a requirement for health or social/legal services it will add up as a cost to the tax payer. If they are not genuine we have been paying out for someone, (who has no right to be here’s) expenses.

This is why a better system needs to be put in place, so that genuine applicants are considered/accepted and those entering illegally are not able to automatically access such services or funds.

I don’t believe the majority want handouts, they just think they can earn vast sums of money here, put their kids through school, help relatives back home and the taxpayer/government will ensure they won’t end up on the streets, or be ill without healthcare should it not work out. You cannot blame someone wanting a better life, but that isn’t what the asylum process is for.

Why is opening the doors to economic migrants a problem?
It’s not primarily down to taking jobs that British citizens could do, in some cases it maybe they do jobs we need so I don’t think that argument is too strong.

Firstly we are a highly populated country, more densely populated than France, Germany and Italy. There is already pressure on available housing in this country and pressure on maintaining green belt and green spaces. Our roads, particularly around the south are getting more and more congested and we are struggling with pollution levels. We are not building enough housing for people who are already here. 65,000 people are apparently in the asylum system. That is more than the population of Welwyn Garden City. 27,000 of those have arrived this year, that is over double the population of Britain’s Happiest town of Hexham. Where do we put a new small town’s worth of people every year?
Where are we going to build a new town, with doctors surgeries, Dentists, hospitals and transport links?
Who is going to pay for it, are we happy for more of the country to be disappear under concrete and tarmac to accept an increasing population?

Secondly local services come under increased pressure. Kent Council was coming under extreme pressure a few months ago. A family of four will have a requirement for housing, schooling for the children, perhaps health requirements, income support. Perhaps only one person in the family will be working. The draw from the the public purse could easily be more than they are paying into the system in tax, especially if they are a low earner.

Not everyone is going to be a medical professional earning large amounts and paying more into the system than they are taking out.

We just don’t have the infrastructure or the services to let everyone in that wants to just to have a better quality of life.

User avatar
Paulish
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Paulish »

According to the Land Cover Atlas of the UK published in 2017 just 6% of the UK is built on. It also states that 83% of the population live in urban areas thus giving rise to the perception by many that the country is over crowded and that there is no more room.

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FarnboroJohn »

Paulish wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 5:47 pm
According to the Land Cover Atlas of the UK published in 2017 just 6% of the UK is built on. It also states that 83% of the population live in urban areas thus giving rise to the perception by many that the country is over crowded and that there is no more room.
I'm quite shocked to hear that one-twentieth of Britain's land area is already under concrete (is that buildings or does it include roads, railways etc?) That's really quite a lot.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

By what measure is that “a lot”?

(A genuine question, I add. Just wondering what metric/measure you’re using).

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

I’ll add, not in response to anything or anyone in particular, but just generally - I used to work as a planning consultant before I became a solicitor.

Objectively, the U.K. has oodles of space for both housing and industry. And that’s mostly on brownfield/scrubby horrible bits of land in need of development, rather than anything protected such as green belt, AONB, SSSIs etc.

The reason we have a housing shortage (and I’m currently caught in that quagmire), isn’t because we don’t have space.

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

I would hazard a guess in that survey although 6% is built on it doesn’t give the full picture and mean the rest is all available to be built on. I imagine it doesn’t take into account land unable to be inhabited due to it being on hills/mountains, marshland, estuary or flood plains, land owned by the MOD (such as Salisbury plain), those in National Parks that won’t be developed, Crown estate, National Trust or Church owned land/property.

Add to that land protected (hopefully) by green belt.

The land available to be developed is going to be significantly reduced when you take all of that out of the equation.

As a comparison France has about the same population as the UK (give or take 2 million), but is over double the size.

Taking a drive through France down to Lemans about 12 years ago and it is noticeable, how much quieter it is, more open space and the roads hadn’t been pot holes and battered to death by constant traffic.

User avatar
Paulish
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Paulish »

FGR2 wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 6:57 pm

Taking a drive through France down to Lemans about 12 years ago and it is noticeable, how much quieter it is, more open space and the roads hadn’t been pot holes and battered to death by constant traffic.
Large parts of the UK are just like that also. You just have to drive around rural Scotland or parts of England North of York to see similar scenes. It’s just that most of choose to live all bunched up together in urban environments. I think that travelling by car on the major roads of the UK also gives a sense that everything is already built up and “full up”.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

Paulish wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:25 pm

Large parts of the UK are just like that also. You just have to drive around rural Scotland or parts of England North of York to see similar scenes.
And long may this green and pleasant land stay just like that.

Anyway, thoughts on Starmer’s reshuffle? Back to New Labour lite and dangerous not to consult his elected deputy? Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Paulish
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Paulish »

iainpeden wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:34 pm
Paulish wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:25 pm

Large parts of the UK are just like that also. You just have to drive around rural Scotland or parts of England North of York to see similar scenes.
And long may this green and pleasant land stay just like that.

Anyway, thoughts on Starmer’s reshuffle? Back to New Labour lite and dangerous not to consult his elected deputy? Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
It kind of reminds me of Blair’s tactics of keeping John Prescott as his deputy. He basically let JP plough his own furrow and it kept the left of the party more less onside. Starmer is still coming under some pressure to re-admit Corbyn back in to the party( without an apology). Meanwhile the shadow cabinet is starting to look a lot more moderate. ( and electable? ).

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:34 pm
thoughts on Starmer’s reshuffle?
The fact that hardly anyone knows who the people are who are being reshuffled probably means it’s a wise idea (in principle, at least. He could promote equally crap/unknowns to replace them).

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FarnboroJohn »

Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 6:35 pm
By what measure is that “a lot”?

(A genuine question, I add. Just wondering what metric/measure you’re using).
Well, perhaps you would like to consider which counties of England and/or Wales you would like to see disappear in their entirety if the twentieth was all in one place. To put it another way, what would be your line in the sand? 20%? 50%? No limit?

Personally I think we have far more than enough people (in the UK, but also world-wide), and our biggest problem is intellectually bankrupt economists and their adherent politicians who can't devise a model for the future that isn't essentially a pyramid scheme that ends in total ecological collapse.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:24 pm
iainpeden wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:34 pm
thoughts on Starmer’s reshuffle?
The fact that hardly anyone knows who the people are who are being reshuffled probably means it’s a wise idea (in principle, at least. He could promote equally crap/unknowns to replace them).
*Yvette Cooper is a political Titan. She may well be my favourite MP now that Grieve has been kicked out. She has clear values, she’s compassionate, articulate, fierce, and quite intellectually capable (compared to the rest of the pool at least!).

As the Shadow Home Secretary she will run intellectual and moral rings around Priti Patel.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

FarnboroJohn wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:36 pm
Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 6:35 pm
By what measure is that “a lot”?

(A genuine question, I add. Just wondering what metric/measure you’re using).
Well, perhaps you would like to consider which counties of England and/or Wales you would like to see disappear in their entirety if the twentieth was all in one place. To put it another way, what would be your line in the sand? 20%? 50%? No limit?

Personally I think we have far more than enough people (in the UK, but also world-wide), and our biggest problem is intellectually bankrupt economists and their adherent politicians who can't devise a model for the future that isn't essentially a pyramid scheme that ends in total ecological collapse.
I was literally just asking, that’s all.

You’re welcome not to answer as you have chosen to do, but you’re the one making the direct comments that the figure quoted “is quite a lot”. I was just trying to understand on what basis you made that conclusion. It may well be a valid one!

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:44 pm
Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:24 pm
iainpeden wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 8:34 pm
thoughts on Starmer’s reshuffle?
The fact that hardly anyone knows who the people are who are being reshuffled probably means it’s a wise idea (in principle, at least. He could promote equally crap/unknowns to replace them).
*Yvette Cooper is a political Titan. She may well be my favourite MP now that Grieve has been kicked out. She has clear values, she’s compassionate, articulate, fierce, and quite intellectually capable (compared to the rest of the pool at least!).

As the Shadow Home Secretary she will run intellectual and moral rings around Priti Patel.
Yvette Cooper is very good, it will be interesting to see her square up to the “full of hot air” Priti Patel.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

Yeah, definitely. Good to see her in the front ranks.

Perhaps it’ll put pressure on Patel (to the extent she is able to do so) to pull her socks up a bit.

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FarnboroJohn »

Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:49 pm
FarnboroJohn wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 9:36 pm
Tommy wrote:
Mon 29 Nov 2021, 6:35 pm
By what measure is that “a lot”?

(A genuine question, I add. Just wondering what metric/measure you’re using).
Well, perhaps you would like to consider which counties of England and/or Wales you would like to see disappear in their entirety if the twentieth was all in one place. To put it another way, what would be your line in the sand? 20%? 50%? No limit?

Personally I think we have far more than enough people (in the UK, but also world-wide), and our biggest problem is intellectually bankrupt economists and their adherent politicians who can't devise a model for the future that isn't essentially a pyramid scheme that ends in total ecological collapse.
I was literally just asking, that’s all.

You’re welcome not to answer as you have chosen to do, but you’re the one making the direct comments that the figure quoted “is quite a lot”. I was just trying to understand on what basis you made that conclusion. It may well be a valid one!
Hi Tommy,

Please pardon the aggressive language, at the moment I don't seem able to phrase things gently.....

63 days to retirement. Maybe after that I will chill a bit. I just prefer wild places to the concrete jungle!

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

There’s nothing to be excused, mate. 👍🏻

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

There’s a wider, more serious point to be made about MPs actually properly reading the laws they pass, but this is kind of funny:


cg_341
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun 09 Aug 2015, 1:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by cg_341 »

PARTY BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by boff180 »

cg_341 wrote:
Tue 30 Nov 2021, 9:03 pm
PARTY BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is just one track to go with that....


Post Reply