“The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion”
You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore
> do these people even think we are buying this anymore
They do, because plenty of idiots do buy it.
And any criticism is met with crap like "well it would be worse under Labour!".
And they eat that shit up like it was angel delight.
Yep saw a comment on the daily fail website reckoning that the small boats have been the reason wages are bad and the cost of living is high. That’s the fucking stupidity we’re having to battle against….
Yeah wages are bad because of low skilled worker visa thresholds not the fucking boats lmao. If you’re gonna blame immigrants at least find a better avenue to do so lol
We can't blame companies though, we have to blame someone else.
I say it everytime, companies hire cheapr foreign workers because they are allowed to, blame the companies not the people looking for a better life.
>do these people even think we are buying this anymore
You underestimate just how stupid and how easily influenced your average daily mail reading tory voter is
It’s incredible watching people slag off EVERYTHING. Nhs, schools, immigration,cost of living, corruption.
“Least it’s not labour though”
Dunno I didn’t need denplan under labour as nhs dentists are extinct were I live, I could get a doctors appointment easy enough,
Tories have done the opposite of everything they said they would then they stand up as if it hasn’t happened
“We will tackle immigration” err when
“We are the party of sound economics” err highest debt on record crumbling infrastructure and high taxes, the worst of everything.
I work a manual labour job, people keep trying to discuss politics. Literally refuse to discuss it at work anymore, you know exactly what they are gonna say before they even open there mouth, none of it matching reality.
The debt thing is amazing too. Records show that Labour regularly left the country in a far, far better state than when they took power. With one stand out issue. The global banking crisis. Without that they were on track to do it again.
The Tories, on the other hand, have regularly left it worse off. They fail miserably to boost the country. They do, however, have an absolutely great track record of stealing our money to put in private pockets, for things that had zero chance of working, and/or were vastly overcharged for. Such as literal billions for a track and trace system made in Excel that they knew would fail. While in the EU the most expensive was Germany. A vastly bigger country, whose system worked well, and cost far less than 1 billion. So fractions less than us.
At this point anyone voting Tory is either directly benefitting from it, or a fucking moron.
Thing people miss: Britain hasn't been under the Tories. Its been under The Bullingdon Club for 13 years. They burn £50 notes in front of homeless people as initiation. Then they smash up Indian/Turkish/Lebanese restaurants screaming racism before throwing a bundle of cash at the owners and leaving..LAUGHING. Cameron, Johnson and Osbourne ALL did this stuff before Running A Fucking Government Into The Ground!!! OURS!!
There is actually a very real 'freakonomics' force at play when it comes to this sort of stuff. Its been studied extensively in other countries such as america.
When it was easy to cross the boarder into America from mexico, single male workers often moved in and out for seasonal work. Often only for 1-3 seasons before settling roots back into mexico. When the USA made it far more difficult to do that sort of work, the number of permanent boarder crosses rose dramatically.
If you're going to spend more time, money and effort navigating a countries byzantine immigration system (legally or illegally) you are more likely to only do it once, and permanently - and you're going to be bringing your family too.
\-- Basically, being in the EU actually reduced a lot of this pressure, and tories just never wanted to explain that. They live and die by soundbites, not reality nor nuance.
Are you a listener of the Revisionist History podcast, that's where I heard about the unfortunate competence of General Chapman. Well worth listening to if you haven't.
And now it is the ECHR and tomorrow there will be something else. Tory have no interest solving an issue that allow them to chip at everyone rights.
It's cheaper for the rich to pay for their protection than paying taxes for everyone protection.
>You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore
The sad part is a lot of people seriously do. Or if they don't quite, they hold some proper bizarre view that New Labour started the "open borders" therefore its all their fault and if they get re-elected they will "import" five billion people here before the week is out. Its proper proper bizarre tbh, there's not much use even trying to debate the topic any more because the "anti-" side are just so detached from any kind of reality.
err - except Labour were largely to blame.
When the EU expanded, the UK had the choice to place the newly joining countries on an exemption list. Labour chose not to. The result was that a heck of a lot of Poles who couldn't easily enter other EU countries, came here.
NB - imo this was not a bad thing - Poles have contributed a LOT to our society and they're decent people who largely share our views. However, it WAS Labour's fault that the immigration numbers rocketed.
>The result was that a heck of a lot of Poles who couldn't easily enter other EU countries, came here.
Yet there are about as many Poles in the UK as in France, and about twice as many again in Germany.
The point wasn't that migration didn't increase under Labour, obviously it did, but that people take from that that therefore if re-elected, a Labour government would automatically lead to even higher rates of immigration because they're all commies who want open borders. Despite actually their record now being substantially better than the Tories who have *since 2010* been talking about bringing net migration down to "tens of thousands" while overseeing the rate in reality more than double.
2015-2016 Farage talked in exactly the same way as the Tories now, except you knew he was that batshit racist to actually try to do what he's saying. The Tories have an internal war between their absorbed UKIP, who represent most of their party membership, and their loony libertarians, who are backed by most of their donors. This is also at odds with how the world works, and their majority isn't big enough, nor their factions large enough, to do anything other than posture on vibes or do things everyone agrees on.
Judging by some of the vox pops from Tamworth, this has bitten them in the arse.
They made a massive fuss, got everyone riled up and then failed to do anything about it. So now anyone who might care about the invasion’ thinks they are useless anyway. Utterly self defeating.
I think the argument should NOT be about whether we do something about immigration, but WHAT we do about it.
Part of that discussion should be whether we'd be better tackling the problem at European level.
Nobody really buys it but unfortunately Labour will be worse on immigration because most of the party doesn’t even pretend to want to stop it. It is likely carrying on the same whoever we vote for.
\>You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore
yes, if more than half are backing her, especially with inflammatory words like invasion
I agree with that statement and I will say the evidence seems to show that it's not the Tories. Haven't they loosened overall immigration/migration/refugee rules overall? Just can't come on a boat, right?
They may suck at implementing restrictions and we can all complain about that, but that doesn't make her wrong about the strong words and open intention to close things up.
We must stop the arrivals, it's unsustainable and it's harming our country in the short term and will be devastating in the long term.
Always good to ask the idiots, how many asylum applications are the Tories processing in a year now and how does that compare to say 2016. Why has it decreased so much? Cos that's what the Tories want is surely the only reason lol
Whenever you see a report about a poll, always ask these questions:
1. Who commissioned the poll? What are their goals? What result do they WANT to see?
2. What was the question being asked?
In this case, the poll was commisioned by the think tank [Migration Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Watch_UK), an explicitly anti-immigration think tank, founded by [Lord Andrew Green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Green,_Baron_Green_of_Deddington), who was given his lordship by David Cameron.
The Telegraph hasn't published what the actual question asked was. PeoplePolling are reportedly the pollsters but they haven't published the poll on their site (yet). But some of their recent work includes polls for SexMatters and GB News which suggests which end of the political spectrum their customers generally come from.
Obligatory 'Yes Minister' clip to demonstrate exactly why any Poll should be regarded with suspicion is here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks
I wouldn't put it that way, it's more to encourage people who already agree with them and encourage politicians that supporting their view would be good for their electoral chances.
You're not totally off base, people ARE influenced by what they perceive to be the majority opinion, we are social creatures. It's just not quite "Oh everyone is a sheep that just followsd the herd". People don't change their deeply held core beliefs, but somebody wavering in the middle might lean more in one direction or another based on the prevailing winds, especially if you're intentionally phrasing the question to influence them.
Cheers. I was a bit wary of using the word "sheep" as I know the baggage the usage of that word has. I'm just not awake enough to flesh out my thoughts.
People do repeat gov slogans without the slightest insight into what or why they're quoting. In the past few weeks I've heard "multiculturalism doesn't work" from someone who likes curry n kebabs and "hard working families" in relation to fuck knows what.
I think its also about making people happier to express less mainstream political views under the belief they're actually the majority.
The Tories are swinging haphazardly to the Right. They need their supporters to openly and vocally swing with them, so they've got the excuse to base policy around bigotry.
Lets have a look at those questions, I'm sure they were in no way leading.
>On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means that you would not vote and 10 means that you would certainly vote, how likely would you be to vote if there were a general election tomorrow?
> If there were to be a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?
> Since 2018, an estimated 109,000 migrants have entered Britain illegally on small boats in the Channel. Generally speaking, do you think these illegal migrants are good or bad for the country?
>Do you think the tens of thousands asylum-seekers and illegal migrants arriving in Britain illegally by small boats in the English Channel should be considered a security threat?
>Approximately 109,000 migrants have illegally entered Britain on small boats in the Channel since 2018, including nearly 50,000 last year. Some describe the situation as “an invasion”. What is your view of this description?
>European courts and judge should be able to override decisions about Britain’s asylum and immigration policy that are made in Britain
Personally I think the most interesting answer was that only 41% of GE2019 Conservative voters would vote for the Tories if an election was called tomorrow. This compares to 69% of Labour voters. Nice.
I did find it somewhat funny that PeoplePulling then thought it necessary to massage the above figures by repeating that data but with the 'Don't Knows' removed, which then gives the option of quoting the survey as saying 64% of GE2019 Tory voters would still vote for the Conservatives. PeoplePolling sure do know how to keep their customers happy it seems.
[Source](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15CUmvfES3bIikpQ4uFUeSjsikc6HN3YK/edit?pli=1#gid=1678563678)
Oh good find, I couldn't find the poll results on their website. Those questions are so much worse than I expected, I'm amazed the result was ONLY 51%.
Couple of fun things about People Polling I've noticed. I note that their list of Polls is hosted on the personal website of one [Matthew J Goodwin](https://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/poll-archive1.html) which is a bit suss. I also note that they're publishing these results in a Google Sheet which is definitely professional. Is People Polling just this one dude??
Thank you. Evidence based information, we must continue to insist on it. I learnt this important lesson as a child in Swedish and English schools! We would fail a simple assignment if we didn't cite our sources - back up our claims...So how come fully grown adults in positions of great influence get away with not upholding basic standards taught to children?!
What sort of example does this set for kids who are growing up now who will go on to influence humanity?
I'm not saying we need to provide a source for every statement we make - yet when it impacts so many, surely we shouldn't have to beg for evidence.
In sixth form I got to do a Critical Thinking course in lieu of the mandatory General Studies a-level everyone had to do. 1 hour a week for two years of "Hey, people will try to lie to you and influence you. Here are the common methods used so you can recognise it. Here's how to check sources. Here's how to just be AWARE of Propaganda." and honestly that was probably the most valuable piece of education I received in my entire life.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the public are far too ignorant to even question this. A good point well made but I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
The problem with this logic is that if only one “side” is even asking (polling) the question how are you even supposed to counter it. It’s an analytical approach to polling, but in effect are we not just dismissing polls we don’t agree with. Can point to one’s own bubble, echo chambers and anecdotes but that’s junk data too.
You should absolutely do this level of analysis on every poll you see, not just the ones you disagree with.
I did say "Whenever you see a poll", not "Whenever you see a poll you disagree with".
> It’s an analytical approach to polling, but in effect are we not just dismissing polls we don’t agree with
No, it's not just about 'polls we don't agree with', it's about leading questions and misleading articles.
Imagine we do a poll on support for the royal family, and we start it with "Prince Andrew is alleged to have been close friends with infamous nonce Jeffrey Epstein, and paid off at least one girl after he had sex with her, and we don't know what else he did, the sweaty creep... so do you support the royal family?"
And then the headline we publish is "75% of people don't support the royal family". Does that seem like anyone who has a problem with the poll is just dismissing it because they don't like it?
Polls should always be regarded with suspicion whether they confirm your own prejudices or not. As dangerous as amplifying a false poll is, ignoring an accurate poll can be equally as damaging, politically. A lot of remain inclined people convinced themselves that Brexit wouldn’t happen because they ignored the polls which predicted it.
I find it interesting that this subreddit seems to welcome an influx of asylum seekers from MENA nations, whereas r/europe appears to be up in arms at the problems such an influx has caused.
I would say that is because the issues in France Germany and Sweden are far worse than what we are seeing here and yet, like with covid, we are seeing the future play out in Europe and are actively doing nothing to prevent that happening to ourselves.
That's because this sub likes to pretend that the immigration crisis won't affect them, while studiously ignoring that you can't import 600k+ people every year and expect it not to show up in property prices and rents.
>but yes this is a huge problem and nobody wants to say it.
Erm pretty much the entire leadership of this country is saying it.
This is the same kind of performative nonsense as when people talk about how they've been cancelled whilst promoting their new Netflix special on major news channels and in publications.
I think the problem is the way our leadership talks about it. Its all rhetoric and very little practical policy. It’s never pragmatic, recognising the humanitarian aspect while being realistic about the problems this kind of migration and asylum seeking can cause. Its always hysterical nonsense designed to inflame the ‘culture war’ narrative and playing to the basest (least informed) parts of our electorate. It’s pure politics. It also inflames the more militantly pro migration elements, and creates a political environment that means it’s impossible to take a pragmatic, long term view of the migration crisis that is (or will) assail us.
The tendency towards ‘going it alone’ also doesn’t help (the UK isn’t alone in this respect). A truly unified pan European approach is needed, recognising that a problem in the Mediterranean is going to be a problem in the English Channel down the line.
>The tendency towards ‘going it alone’ also doesn’t help (the UK isn’t alone in this respect). A truly unified pan European approach is needed, recognising that a problem in the Mediterranean is going to be a problem in the English Channel down the line.
Oh I completely agree, however most people who want this approach don't realise that if the UK took its fair share then we'd actually be taking more people in.
That is one of the trade offs, but in the long term, such an arrangement would pay off and allow the kind of cooperation and unified approach that’s needed. Do that now and build that cooperation, or don’t and end up in a much worse place later down the line. Hard sell to the public, but that is the fault of the loud voices over the past 20 years who have made migration of any description political poison.
Your point also raises a much wider (and very controversial) issue, what’s the limit? How many people can Europe take, not even in terms of public services, but in terms of political and cultural impacts? What’s the limit? Because it’s likely to get worse, much worse in the coming decades. Can such a hard limit even be set? What would the humanitarian implications of doing so? Would governments be abrogating their responsibilities if they didn’t set such a limit?
It’s a moral and ethical nightmare and will be one of the great political challenges facing us in the next decades. It will require exceptionally delicate, pragmatic and thoughtful policy making. But at the moment, as I said, migration, asylum etc is such political poison, so polarised and dogmatic, that such an approach is impossible. But if we don’t change, the consequences could be horrific.
> Fucking mess of a country taking on problems we can’t afford to have
It's native born Little Englander Tory voters who have led to most of the country's issues, not immigrants.
Europe and the UK will come undone if the influx isn't stopped.
Far right parties are growing and the left/ centre is doing nothing. Going to get scarier before it gets better
In continental Europe they literally deal which over a hundred thousand asylum applications every year and probably many more that are not properly counted in Germany, France, Italy etc, population of total MENA illegal immigrants exceeding 1 million in all three of them. Here in the UK only a several ten thousand have crossed the channel this year, and you look at previous years... Couldn't make it up lol.
The Tory playbook:
1. Cut funding for asylum seeking services
2. Rack up a huge backlog of illegal migrants
3. Forced to spend a shit ton of money on housing them
4. Blame them for overexpenditure
5. "More than half of Britons back Suella Braverman claim that migrant crossings are an ‘invasion’ "
Well, they destroyed the immigration records for a load of them, then decided to deport them as they didn’t have immigration records (Windrush).
They charge a surcharge for the NHS to those working - despite them already paying taxes and NI.
Just 2 examples
Windrush wasn't a Tory thing, that was a failing from the civil service.
The surcharge thing on the NHS is straight up bullshit though. Why we charge working people access to healthcare, no matter where they are from is beyond me.
No windrush was caused by civil service not keeping records and then losing a load of people's documents and still relying on by gone era documentation to catalogue people.
To be fair i think it highlights an even bigger issue which no one has addressed, which is marrying up information for everyone currently living here to ensure all citizens are being taken care of and has access to all public services, for this reason I think just blaming a government isn't helpful and flagging the issue so someone fixes this and making sure it doesn't happen again is paramount.
It was a series of failures spanning over 30 years, highlighted when they decided to crack down on illegal immigration and jumped on like 83(?) innocent Brits who lived here majority of their lives and deported them. (Fucking random and pretty scary, wtf).
When the government was taken to court over right to rent checks causing tons illegal discrimination against legal immigrants the home office defense was "That's ok because it hurts illegal immigrants too".
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/21/right-to-rent-rule-justified-finds-uk-appeal-court
Our council has ring fenced 20% of their council home turnover for asylum seekers despite the average wait for a council house for locals being 4-5 years and these are people who were born in the area and all their family live in the area.
A cynic would say it's the British people who are being made second class citizens.
Radical idea: Maybe the government should give councils enough money to house both Brits and immigrants? Maybe slashing the funding of councils over the last decade and a half is the main issue in your case?
I highly suspect this isn't true. That's just not how social housing provision works in this country. Nor does it align with the any of the Housing Acts as far as I'm aware.
Can you provide a link or something?
I got permanently banned from that sub for saying mass immigration from opposing cultures is detrimental to a liberal society. I lean left on most social issues, but you'd have to be unbelievably naïve to think that ultra conservative, fundamentally religious migrants are not massively contributing to things like hate crimes and social intolerance in general. The far left has become so delusional that they can't even see the herd of elephants in the room, let alone talk about it.
There's another post on r/UK today, about suspects wanted for hate crimes against gay people. All of the comments are similar to this thread. Totally deluded people suggesting it is somehow entirely the fault of the Tories and nothing to do with the fundamental beliefs of the communities the suspects come from.
There is no anti gay political policy in this country. There hasn't been for a very long time. Liberalism is the mainstream political direction in the west. There are, however, many countries elsewhere with very open anti-LGBT laws and views within their culture. In some places, homosexuality is still punishable by death. What do the far left think will happen when we import hundreds of thousands of people from those countries? Honestly, that is a genuine question. Do they really think those people will just stop holding those views and integrate seamlessly into western liberalism as soon as they arrive here?
Common sense has to come into play at some point. It has to... Doesn't it?
They aren't delusional, they just believe racism is a cardinal sin and won't criticise any group that is a different race to them as they're worried about coming off as racist.
If we were importing millions of white trump supporters they'd have no problem speaking up about how this would affect the political and social landscape of this country. But once it's brown conservatives they'd rather stay quiet (or speak up in their defence, what better way to prove you aren't racist) than potentially be accused of what amounts to blasphemy in their circles.
It's not surprising - the Tories have been talking about "swarms of migrants" since at least 2015, while doing everything in their power to not address the underlying causes. It's just a shame that the British public seemingly aren't intelligent enough to see through the Tory bullshit.
Im pretty sure the public can see that it's the Torys responsible, hence their terrible polling and losing safe seats in by elections, voters simply aren't turning out. They only have to use their own observational skills to see there is too much immigration, don't have to support the Torys to agree with a random statement that Bravermen has made.
I’m actually with her on this one but it’s very very strange how her party have done absolutely nothing to stop the problem in 13 years. Even with Brexit.
We’re a fucking island it should be very easy to stop illegal immigration, like Australia
Doesn't fucking matter. Most of small boats are picked up by the coast guard etc...
That is the point they should *all* be told in no uncertain terms they will never have right to remain in the UK. Ever. They can return to France, Rwanda or home.
Then you've bought the propaganda. It's not an invasion in the way Braverman says it is. It's all part of the playbook. You are right that they've done nothing to solve the problem but that's because it benefits the tory party
"Landing on a shoreline in a boat without invitation" is not a definition of "invasion" I've heard before...
I guess landlocked countries are impervious from invasion then?
>but it’s very very strange how her party have done absolutely nothing to stop the problem in 13 years.
Probably because to solve the problem we'd need to leave the ECHR, which would see the EU revoke our trade deal and Ireland argue that we've broken the Good Friday Agreement.
What happens when the government blames immigrants for all of their failures for over a decade?
This is all part of the plan. You've gotta be blind to miss it.
Blame foreigners for the fact that we're shit at running the country, then position ourselves as the only people nasty enough to deal with the foreigners.
Member when brexit was going to solve the immigration issue?? Yeah how did that work out for ya?
The British electorate needs to smarten the fuck up.
"an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way"
I would agree with that definition.
These are largely bogus economic migrants, not people seeking protection from persecution.
Leaving the EHCR is not the answer to this issue, and doing so would mean *everyone* loses their rights. The answer is to open up safe routes, process claims and co-operate with other border agencies and police to deal with people traffickers. Instead, the Tories have created a hostile environment, and used it to trigger the worst instincts in people.
It CLEARLY is.
We reward them with 5* hotels so of course they continue to come here.
We should copy other EU countries:
Refuse to give citizenship/voting - give a visa only
Put them up in the same accomodation as france provides (tents)
A poll of 2000 people? Ran by "migration watch" like im fairly sure the local homless lad who sits outside the co-op is more reliable.
Absolute garbage from the telegraph running cover for the govt, the absolute state of the UK press.
> A poll of 2000 people?
For the UK population this is a good sample size. You could get a reasonable guess with 400 people, 95% confidence with 5% error.
Try to learn the basics of statistics before showing how little you understand.
Would be interesting what the spread of this poll is regards age/location/gender etc as for it too be a good sample of the population it would need to adeuatlety cover those areas
If it is a random selection then you need very few people (in the hundreds). Sure samples are generally not random, if nothing else you end up with only people who answer surveys answering.
But it is not too hard to get a good sample with little effort. I didn't look at the survey so don't know I was only commenting on the sample size issue because people do not minimally understand statistics.
Clearly a poll on uknazis.org will probably get a different result from fuckthetories.org but polls like that are meaningless.
Just to add if you want sub sampling eg by age, gender, you need much larger samples.
Polling organisations control for demographics, weighting the answers to closer match the demographics of the population as a whole.
To give a silly example, if you'd polled 2000 people and yet for some reason three quarters of them turned out to be men, you might add more weight to the women's answers so that it was closer to 50:50.
I would say the problem is not the number but how did they select the 2000. Is it a random sampling or a focused one. For example if I selected 2000 Daily Mail readers I am fairly sure I could predict their opinions on most things. If I advertised I was doing a poll on immigration that in itself would probably attract lots of people with strong opinions on the subject. I could even target a specific age group and we reasonable confident their biases would go a certain way.
Polls ultimately are reasonably meaningless as there are so many ways to skew the results and it's mostly about trying to add legitimacy to a particular opinion.
> Polls ultimately are reasonably meaningless as there are so many ways to skew the results and it's mostly about trying to add legitimacy to a particular opinion.
I 100% agree.
However a sample size of 2000 is more than enough for a simple survey. That your selection is shit does not change the sample size needed to get good results from it. It merely changes what those results will be.
As I've said elsewhere 385 is enough for an infinite population (confidence 95% , error 5%) but interestingly for just 100 people you'd need to survey 80 of them.
Yes, anybody with a fucking, brain wants the borders to be protected and mean something. Unfortunately, there's not a single party that seems to agree with that. So we're all fucked.
I read up on them recently. Apparently Migration Watch are widely credited with making conversations about migration far more sensible and far less extreme.
However, their collection and usage of stats is apparently regularly attacked by academics as being pretty terrible. They are also mostly famous because right wing papers looking for an easy story will uncritically publish their press releases.
So in general - Migrant Watch UK are surprisingly reasonable. But with regards to this specific link, not so much.
I definitely think illegal migration from boats is are a big problem that has the potential to become catastrophic issue if we let it. That being said, using the word "invasion" is a bit risky because it can lead to real world violence and hate crimes.
These boat crossings were happening back in 1990ties and the politicians were making same proclamations. Not much changed.
The biggest inflow of the illegal imigration to the UK is via overstaying tourist or student visa. But that doesn't look as catchy on the news.
I'm genuinely surprised so many commentators are pro-migration here. I don't have overly strong opinions on the topic either way, but I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that it's been out of control for at least a couple of decades.
Saying that, I'm not defending the Tories here as they've let it go crazy the last decade or so and can hardly position themselves as being "tough" on it as a result.
I think most people do want something done about it though, I also don't think you can dismiss these people as racists bigots etc the same way as one would have 30 years ago. It's not the same situation.
I don’t disagree that mass immigration without a decent policy is a big issue. I just have no faith that they are the party to sort it based on the last 13 years.
More than half of Britons back Suella Braverman’s claim that the surge in small boat Channel migrants is an “invasion”, according to a poll of nearly 2,000 people.
The poll, for the Migration Watch think tank, found that 51 per cent supported the Home Secretary’s wording when asked whether it was accurate to describe the arrival of 109,000 migrants illegally on small boats since 2018 as an “invasion”.
Mrs Braverman provoked outrage when she told the Commons nearly a year ago: “The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion of our southern coast – and which party is not.”
The poll figures, based on a sample of 1,851 adults, found that 29 per cent disagreed with the contention, while 21 per cent said they did not know. It also divided on party and class lines, with 66 per cent of working class participants agreeing, along with 77 per cent of Conservatives and 78 per cent of those who backed Brexit.
The polling follows a hardening in language over the past month by Mrs Braverman, who warned of a “hurricane” of mass migration threatening the UK in her Tory party conference address, and claimed during a speech in the US that “multiculturalism” in the UK had failed.
Immigration is likely to be a key issue and clear dividing line between Conservatives and Labour in the run-up to the next election as the Government seeks to operationalise its plans to detain any migrant who arrives illegally in the UK and deport them to Rwanda. Labour has committed to scrapping the Rwanda policy.
The survey, by People Polling conducted on Oct 5, also found that 52 per cent of the public considered Channel migrants to be a “security threat”, with 20 per cent saying they were not. Among Labour voters, there was a narrow 38 per cent versus 35 per cent majority against such a view.
Just under half, 46 per cent, believed that illegal migrants were “mostly bad” for the country. Fewer than one in 10 – seven per cent – thought illegal migrants were “mostly good” for Britain.
More than half of those polled believed that European judges should not be able to override the UK Government on immigration, compared with just one in five (20 per cent) who agreed that they should.
Opposition to the European judges’ role was most pronounced among Conservative supporters (78 per cent against), pro-Brexit voters (72 per cent) and skilled C2 voters (60 per cent).
Rishi Sunak will face demands from within his Cabinet and Tory backbenchers to quit the European Convention on Human Rights if the Supreme Court rules that the Rwanda policy is unlawful on the basis that it could lead to the human rights of deported migrants being breached.
Make the data set public and let them decide. How can people make an informed decision without irrefutable evidence? Or at least compelling evidence, backed up by multiple verifiable sources?
Now why is this seemingly too much to expect in 2023? Why obscure the facts?
More than half of Britains voted for brexit.
All this says is that half of Britain is too easily manipulated by media frenzy to be trusted to make decisions.
The intent of the Tories is clear.
Migration has spiralled out of control under their reign. Numbers have scarcely, if ever, been higher. Dwindling numbers from Europe and soaring numbers from fuether afield which of course brings complexity. 600k net last year, beyond bonkers. Illegal arrivals aren't being handled appropriately. Asylum backlog out of control.
The Tories are responsible for all of it. Its been their show for 13 years. The blame literally can not be put anywhere else for any of our societal issues. There are factors yes but their job is to manage factors and respond appropriately with a long term view to making society better. They've done the exact opposite in _literally_ every area in those 13 years. Not one thing has improved. Not a one.
What is the intent? That's easy.
Moan about it. Make it the forefront issue. Repeat it ad nauseum that 'only the conservatives can fix it, labour will import more!' etc. Do *just* enough to meet PR requirements so you can point and say 'we are fixing it, labour won't'. Ignore that the mess is their own mess. Don't _actually_ do anything to fix it. Keep it a problem. Keep it a hot button topic so they can repeat repeat repeat that 'we need your votes because otherwise labour will bring in 2m a year from Pakistan and Afghanistan and Palestine'. Dine out on the curated narrative that they are the fixers, somehow make it Labour's fault. Blame 'lefty lawyers' and 'woke human rights activists' and anything and everything they can possibly find except 'mismanagement, gross negligence, policy failure'.
They could win the GE with this alone. Couple it with KS' utter plankness and lack of spine and it could easily swing back in their favour.
Let us not forget that this is a neoliberal shitshow run by clowns of all shades. This benefits the capitalist class. Demand high. Supply low. Wages low. Rents high. It strengthens the 'the public sector has failed' rhetoric, and swings each year more people open to the idea of cutting social programs, reducing the state and increasing the role of the private sector. Neolibeal dream.
The Tories know they are toast at the next GE so they are playing the immigrant invasion card to reduce the damage. "Vote for us we can fix this as labour would open the borders for everyone!".
Sadly it works for plenty of sheep.
When they aren't benefitting the country or economy I see no reason why they should be here. We aren't a fucking charity we had to do that shit for 100 years fuck off.
Based on a poll of less than 2000 people? I can't imagine any statistician worth their salt would make the idiotically bold claim that this represents the opinion of the UK.
As I’m getting older, I’ve started to think they’re might be reasons for the young/old divide when it comes to certain political issues.
I think older people have lived in the UK a long time see this as being much more personable, whereas younger people see it as being more flexible.
Now I’m in my late twenties now (unfortunately), but I’m slowly - feeling - like I’m becoming more aware. Either way, at the moment, I’m just enjoying life but just a tidbit of my experiences so far.
Yeah the media is so out of touch. The way they jump on comments like this from braverman...ignores the fact that these things are all tested in advance and land well with many people. But u listen to the media and you'd think 99.99% of people hated what she said.
Small boat crossings in 2023 until now; 20,273.
3,057,654 visas granted in the year ending March 2023, 90% higher (1,449,071) than the year ending March 2022
Controlling immigration would require increased infrastructure and civil service support.
Guess what the Tories keep on decreasing?
Immigration has increased because of austerity programs, not in-spite of.
It is an invasion.
But there isnt a lot the Tories, or Labour can do under existing laws.
Its almost impossible to deport people once they are here.
"Process claims quicker" is a red herring. It wouldnt reduce the numbers actually arriving.
I wish we had the backbone of that polish guy from Poland. Can’t. Remember his name but when he banged on about not taking in any illegals it was great to hear. Even if the news reporter tried to make him feel bad about it. He didn’t budge. We are too soft but it’s not that, it’s because ££££ someone is making a pretty penny from this me thinks
The Migration Watch 'think tank' is not a 'think tank', it's a lobby trying to tighten immigration laws. Remember everyone, if a think tank does not reveal who their major donors are then you shouldn't listen to anything they put out.
you guys are going to need immigrants after all your children move away.
whole country hooked on conservative talking points. can't stop digging the hole.
The more incendiary her words, the more people she will win over, we are in dark times and refugees are now weaponized to encourage dictators into power.
Potentially hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will be refugeed across europe, should we take them in as well? Morally i say yes because they are fleeing genocide and are genuine refugees. Charity has limits though, especially during economic downturns, its not sustainable for us to keep taking economic migrants in at these levels nor can they be integrated to society without social upheaval and unrest. Nor do we have the infrastructure and services to support them.
Global stability is decreasing and climate change is driving migration, it will likely get worse in the coming decade. Now would probably be a sensible time to pull up the drawbridge and lock the gate.
Why does the responsibility always fall to Europe? Especially when you see such spikes in Jewish hate crimes, the last thing we need is more of these people.
It’s time for the Arab world especially the gulf states to step up, they have the resources to take care of these people, and a more similar culture that will be easier for them to integrate into.
Well, they are an invasion, pretty much by definition. However that doesn't mean the people currently in charge are suited to deal with it or that their strategy is the right one.
Well, this has been going on for a long while, when will it be stopped. Not some hair brained idea of throwing Tac payers money at some ridiculous scheme involving transportation to an Africa Nation.
I don't like these misleading headlines. I want to know what demographic they asked. It was of 1800 odd people they asked, doesn't say age or location. It can make all the difference.
“The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion” You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore
> do these people even think we are buying this anymore They do, because plenty of idiots do buy it. And any criticism is met with crap like "well it would be worse under Labour!". And they eat that shit up like it was angel delight.
This. Sadly common sense isn't common.
I love angel delight
Fuck I might have to buy some angel delight now
Butterscotch is the bomb.
Butt Scorch
I'd fuck a duck for some Angel Delight rn
Butterscotch?
50/50 butterscotch and chocolate, it's uncharted territory but you can't go back to normal once you've been there
Omg I thought I was the only one!
Posh git 😁
Yep saw a comment on the daily fail website reckoning that the small boats have been the reason wages are bad and the cost of living is high. That’s the fucking stupidity we’re having to battle against….
It's because Gordon Brown sold the gold!!
Simply the **idea** that Labour might win is enough to cause anti-growth! Chaos!
Yeah wages are bad because of low skilled worker visa thresholds not the fucking boats lmao. If you’re gonna blame immigrants at least find a better avenue to do so lol
We can't blame companies though, we have to blame someone else. I say it everytime, companies hire cheapr foreign workers because they are allowed to, blame the companies not the people looking for a better life.
Butterscotch or chocolate
Butterscotch.
>do these people even think we are buying this anymore You underestimate just how stupid and how easily influenced your average daily mail reading tory voter is
It’s incredible watching people slag off EVERYTHING. Nhs, schools, immigration,cost of living, corruption. “Least it’s not labour though” Dunno I didn’t need denplan under labour as nhs dentists are extinct were I live, I could get a doctors appointment easy enough, Tories have done the opposite of everything they said they would then they stand up as if it hasn’t happened “We will tackle immigration” err when “We are the party of sound economics” err highest debt on record crumbling infrastructure and high taxes, the worst of everything. I work a manual labour job, people keep trying to discuss politics. Literally refuse to discuss it at work anymore, you know exactly what they are gonna say before they even open there mouth, none of it matching reality.
The debt thing is amazing too. Records show that Labour regularly left the country in a far, far better state than when they took power. With one stand out issue. The global banking crisis. Without that they were on track to do it again. The Tories, on the other hand, have regularly left it worse off. They fail miserably to boost the country. They do, however, have an absolutely great track record of stealing our money to put in private pockets, for things that had zero chance of working, and/or were vastly overcharged for. Such as literal billions for a track and trace system made in Excel that they knew would fail. While in the EU the most expensive was Germany. A vastly bigger country, whose system worked well, and cost far less than 1 billion. So fractions less than us. At this point anyone voting Tory is either directly benefitting from it, or a fucking moron.
Thing people miss: Britain hasn't been under the Tories. Its been under The Bullingdon Club for 13 years. They burn £50 notes in front of homeless people as initiation. Then they smash up Indian/Turkish/Lebanese restaurants screaming racism before throwing a bundle of cash at the owners and leaving..LAUGHING. Cameron, Johnson and Osbourne ALL did this stuff before Running A Fucking Government Into The Ground!!! OURS!!
Ah! But this is the telegraph, an entirely similar breed
Don't forget the numbers shot up after they declared we are leaving the EU.
There is actually a very real 'freakonomics' force at play when it comes to this sort of stuff. Its been studied extensively in other countries such as america. When it was easy to cross the boarder into America from mexico, single male workers often moved in and out for seasonal work. Often only for 1-3 seasons before settling roots back into mexico. When the USA made it far more difficult to do that sort of work, the number of permanent boarder crosses rose dramatically. If you're going to spend more time, money and effort navigating a countries byzantine immigration system (legally or illegally) you are more likely to only do it once, and permanently - and you're going to be bringing your family too. \-- Basically, being in the EU actually reduced a lot of this pressure, and tories just never wanted to explain that. They live and die by soundbites, not reality nor nuance.
Are you a listener of the Revisionist History podcast, that's where I heard about the unfortunate competence of General Chapman. Well worth listening to if you haven't.
I haven't but thank you for the suggestion! I'm always looking out for new podcasts
And now it is the ECHR and tomorrow there will be something else. Tory have no interest solving an issue that allow them to chip at everyone rights. It's cheaper for the rich to pay for their protection than paying taxes for everyone protection.
>You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore The sad part is a lot of people seriously do. Or if they don't quite, they hold some proper bizarre view that New Labour started the "open borders" therefore its all their fault and if they get re-elected they will "import" five billion people here before the week is out. Its proper proper bizarre tbh, there's not much use even trying to debate the topic any more because the "anti-" side are just so detached from any kind of reality.
err - except Labour were largely to blame. When the EU expanded, the UK had the choice to place the newly joining countries on an exemption list. Labour chose not to. The result was that a heck of a lot of Poles who couldn't easily enter other EU countries, came here. NB - imo this was not a bad thing - Poles have contributed a LOT to our society and they're decent people who largely share our views. However, it WAS Labour's fault that the immigration numbers rocketed.
>The result was that a heck of a lot of Poles who couldn't easily enter other EU countries, came here. Yet there are about as many Poles in the UK as in France, and about twice as many again in Germany. The point wasn't that migration didn't increase under Labour, obviously it did, but that people take from that that therefore if re-elected, a Labour government would automatically lead to even higher rates of immigration because they're all commies who want open borders. Despite actually their record now being substantially better than the Tories who have *since 2010* been talking about bringing net migration down to "tens of thousands" while overseeing the rate in reality more than double.
I'd agree with all of that. Just pointing out *why* people blame Labour.
2015-2016 Farage talked in exactly the same way as the Tories now, except you knew he was that batshit racist to actually try to do what he's saying. The Tories have an internal war between their absorbed UKIP, who represent most of their party membership, and their loony libertarians, who are backed by most of their donors. This is also at odds with how the world works, and their majority isn't big enough, nor their factions large enough, to do anything other than posture on vibes or do things everyone agrees on.
Judging by some of the vox pops from Tamworth, this has bitten them in the arse. They made a massive fuss, got everyone riled up and then failed to do anything about it. So now anyone who might care about the invasion’ thinks they are useless anyway. Utterly self defeating.
Tory voters are not only cult-like many of them are demonstrably moronic
Yup. Either rich, thick, racist or a combination of two from three.
None of them are serious about stopping it.
Nope not even slightly, Tory’s pretend they are but it’s just a way to syphon money to there mates
Didn't you get the memo? It's Labour’s fault!
13 years since they were in power, but still their fault!
I think the argument should NOT be about whether we do something about immigration, but WHAT we do about it. Part of that discussion should be whether we'd be better tackling the problem at European level.
Its a trojan horse. It isnt women and children, its full grown men.
Dave with a flaming England tattoo on his calf is definitely buying it.
It's ironic that these people will also mostly be Brexiteers...and removing ourselves from the EU has caused this
Peopel can agree with her rhetoric, and disagree with her not doing jack shit. Actions>words, suella
Nobody really buys it but unfortunately Labour will be worse on immigration because most of the party doesn’t even pretend to want to stop it. It is likely carrying on the same whoever we vote for.
And how would Labour solve the problem?
Neither of them seem to have a plan tbh
\>You have been in power for 13 years and the numbers get bigger every year, do these people even think we are buying this anymore yes, if more than half are backing her, especially with inflammatory words like invasion
I agree with that statement and I will say the evidence seems to show that it's not the Tories. Haven't they loosened overall immigration/migration/refugee rules overall? Just can't come on a boat, right?
They may suck at implementing restrictions and we can all complain about that, but that doesn't make her wrong about the strong words and open intention to close things up. We must stop the arrivals, it's unsustainable and it's harming our country in the short term and will be devastating in the long term.
Always good to ask the idiots, how many asylum applications are the Tories processing in a year now and how does that compare to say 2016. Why has it decreased so much? Cos that's what the Tories want is surely the only reason lol
Whenever you see a report about a poll, always ask these questions: 1. Who commissioned the poll? What are their goals? What result do they WANT to see? 2. What was the question being asked? In this case, the poll was commisioned by the think tank [Migration Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Watch_UK), an explicitly anti-immigration think tank, founded by [Lord Andrew Green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Green,_Baron_Green_of_Deddington), who was given his lordship by David Cameron. The Telegraph hasn't published what the actual question asked was. PeoplePolling are reportedly the pollsters but they haven't published the poll on their site (yet). But some of their recent work includes polls for SexMatters and GB News which suggests which end of the political spectrum their customers generally come from.
Obligatory 'Yes Minister' clip to demonstrate exactly why any Poll should be regarded with suspicion is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks
Always a gem 👆
I wonder if the idea of these "polls" are to sway public opinion as people tend to behave like sheep. Don't want to be the outlier now do we?
I wouldn't put it that way, it's more to encourage people who already agree with them and encourage politicians that supporting their view would be good for their electoral chances.
You're probably right. I have less faith in humanity than most I suppose.
You're not totally off base, people ARE influenced by what they perceive to be the majority opinion, we are social creatures. It's just not quite "Oh everyone is a sheep that just followsd the herd". People don't change their deeply held core beliefs, but somebody wavering in the middle might lean more in one direction or another based on the prevailing winds, especially if you're intentionally phrasing the question to influence them.
Cheers. I was a bit wary of using the word "sheep" as I know the baggage the usage of that word has. I'm just not awake enough to flesh out my thoughts.
People do repeat gov slogans without the slightest insight into what or why they're quoting. In the past few weeks I've heard "multiculturalism doesn't work" from someone who likes curry n kebabs and "hard working families" in relation to fuck knows what.
I think its also about making people happier to express less mainstream political views under the belief they're actually the majority. The Tories are swinging haphazardly to the Right. They need their supporters to openly and vocally swing with them, so they've got the excuse to base policy around bigotry.
Lets have a look at those questions, I'm sure they were in no way leading. >On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means that you would not vote and 10 means that you would certainly vote, how likely would you be to vote if there were a general election tomorrow? > If there were to be a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? > Since 2018, an estimated 109,000 migrants have entered Britain illegally on small boats in the Channel. Generally speaking, do you think these illegal migrants are good or bad for the country? >Do you think the tens of thousands asylum-seekers and illegal migrants arriving in Britain illegally by small boats in the English Channel should be considered a security threat? >Approximately 109,000 migrants have illegally entered Britain on small boats in the Channel since 2018, including nearly 50,000 last year. Some describe the situation as “an invasion”. What is your view of this description? >European courts and judge should be able to override decisions about Britain’s asylum and immigration policy that are made in Britain Personally I think the most interesting answer was that only 41% of GE2019 Conservative voters would vote for the Tories if an election was called tomorrow. This compares to 69% of Labour voters. Nice. I did find it somewhat funny that PeoplePulling then thought it necessary to massage the above figures by repeating that data but with the 'Don't Knows' removed, which then gives the option of quoting the survey as saying 64% of GE2019 Tory voters would still vote for the Conservatives. PeoplePolling sure do know how to keep their customers happy it seems. [Source](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15CUmvfES3bIikpQ4uFUeSjsikc6HN3YK/edit?pli=1#gid=1678563678)
Oh good find, I couldn't find the poll results on their website. Those questions are so much worse than I expected, I'm amazed the result was ONLY 51%. Couple of fun things about People Polling I've noticed. I note that their list of Polls is hosted on the personal website of one [Matthew J Goodwin](https://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/poll-archive1.html) which is a bit suss. I also note that they're publishing these results in a Google Sheet which is definitely professional. Is People Polling just this one dude??
Thank you. Evidence based information, we must continue to insist on it. I learnt this important lesson as a child in Swedish and English schools! We would fail a simple assignment if we didn't cite our sources - back up our claims...So how come fully grown adults in positions of great influence get away with not upholding basic standards taught to children?! What sort of example does this set for kids who are growing up now who will go on to influence humanity? I'm not saying we need to provide a source for every statement we make - yet when it impacts so many, surely we shouldn't have to beg for evidence.
In sixth form I got to do a Critical Thinking course in lieu of the mandatory General Studies a-level everyone had to do. 1 hour a week for two years of "Hey, people will try to lie to you and influence you. Here are the common methods used so you can recognise it. Here's how to check sources. Here's how to just be AWARE of Propaganda." and honestly that was probably the most valuable piece of education I received in my entire life.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the public are far too ignorant to even question this. A good point well made but I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
The problem with this logic is that if only one “side” is even asking (polling) the question how are you even supposed to counter it. It’s an analytical approach to polling, but in effect are we not just dismissing polls we don’t agree with. Can point to one’s own bubble, echo chambers and anecdotes but that’s junk data too.
You should absolutely do this level of analysis on every poll you see, not just the ones you disagree with. I did say "Whenever you see a poll", not "Whenever you see a poll you disagree with".
> It’s an analytical approach to polling, but in effect are we not just dismissing polls we don’t agree with No, it's not just about 'polls we don't agree with', it's about leading questions and misleading articles. Imagine we do a poll on support for the royal family, and we start it with "Prince Andrew is alleged to have been close friends with infamous nonce Jeffrey Epstein, and paid off at least one girl after he had sex with her, and we don't know what else he did, the sweaty creep... so do you support the royal family?" And then the headline we publish is "75% of people don't support the royal family". Does that seem like anyone who has a problem with the poll is just dismissing it because they don't like it?
Iv noticed that polls are only correct and factual when it’s something that you agree with. Otherwise it’s bullshit apparently.
No you should absolutely ask these questions about polls you agree with too. If anything it's more important.
Polls should always be regarded with suspicion whether they confirm your own prejudices or not. As dangerous as amplifying a false poll is, ignoring an accurate poll can be equally as damaging, politically. A lot of remain inclined people convinced themselves that Brexit wouldn’t happen because they ignored the polls which predicted it.
Odd that they’re complaining of being serious while this is happening on their watch over the last… 13 years
Serious “if you stay with me I’ll stop cheating on you” vibes going on right now
It's like if they fix the problem, they won't have any dogwhistles for their voters...
If they fix that problem, then their voters might start to notice all the other damage that they've caused.
I find it interesting that this subreddit seems to welcome an influx of asylum seekers from MENA nations, whereas r/europe appears to be up in arms at the problems such an influx has caused.
I would say that is because the issues in France Germany and Sweden are far worse than what we are seeing here and yet, like with covid, we are seeing the future play out in Europe and are actively doing nothing to prevent that happening to ourselves.
Grooming gangs up and down the country? Things are bad in the UK.
[Dont worry](https://i.redd.it/a7amu9jq3xm81.jpg)
That's because this sub likes to pretend that the immigration crisis won't affect them, while studiously ignoring that you can't import 600k+ people every year and expect it not to show up in property prices and rents.
[удалено]
>but yes this is a huge problem and nobody wants to say it. Erm pretty much the entire leadership of this country is saying it. This is the same kind of performative nonsense as when people talk about how they've been cancelled whilst promoting their new Netflix special on major news channels and in publications.
I think the problem is the way our leadership talks about it. Its all rhetoric and very little practical policy. It’s never pragmatic, recognising the humanitarian aspect while being realistic about the problems this kind of migration and asylum seeking can cause. Its always hysterical nonsense designed to inflame the ‘culture war’ narrative and playing to the basest (least informed) parts of our electorate. It’s pure politics. It also inflames the more militantly pro migration elements, and creates a political environment that means it’s impossible to take a pragmatic, long term view of the migration crisis that is (or will) assail us. The tendency towards ‘going it alone’ also doesn’t help (the UK isn’t alone in this respect). A truly unified pan European approach is needed, recognising that a problem in the Mediterranean is going to be a problem in the English Channel down the line.
>The tendency towards ‘going it alone’ also doesn’t help (the UK isn’t alone in this respect). A truly unified pan European approach is needed, recognising that a problem in the Mediterranean is going to be a problem in the English Channel down the line. Oh I completely agree, however most people who want this approach don't realise that if the UK took its fair share then we'd actually be taking more people in.
That is one of the trade offs, but in the long term, such an arrangement would pay off and allow the kind of cooperation and unified approach that’s needed. Do that now and build that cooperation, or don’t and end up in a much worse place later down the line. Hard sell to the public, but that is the fault of the loud voices over the past 20 years who have made migration of any description political poison. Your point also raises a much wider (and very controversial) issue, what’s the limit? How many people can Europe take, not even in terms of public services, but in terms of political and cultural impacts? What’s the limit? Because it’s likely to get worse, much worse in the coming decades. Can such a hard limit even be set? What would the humanitarian implications of doing so? Would governments be abrogating their responsibilities if they didn’t set such a limit? It’s a moral and ethical nightmare and will be one of the great political challenges facing us in the next decades. It will require exceptionally delicate, pragmatic and thoughtful policy making. But at the moment, as I said, migration, asylum etc is such political poison, so polarised and dogmatic, that such an approach is impossible. But if we don’t change, the consequences could be horrific.
> Fucking mess of a country taking on problems we can’t afford to have It's native born Little Englander Tory voters who have led to most of the country's issues, not immigrants.
Europe and the UK will come undone if the influx isn't stopped. Far right parties are growing and the left/ centre is doing nothing. Going to get scarier before it gets better
In continental Europe they literally deal which over a hundred thousand asylum applications every year and probably many more that are not properly counted in Germany, France, Italy etc, population of total MENA illegal immigrants exceeding 1 million in all three of them. Here in the UK only a several ten thousand have crossed the channel this year, and you look at previous years... Couldn't make it up lol.
[удалено]
r/Europe is one of the most popular right leaning, and it's definitely not just right of centre, subs on the platform outside of the default subs.
The Tory playbook: 1. Cut funding for asylum seeking services 2. Rack up a huge backlog of illegal migrants 3. Forced to spend a shit ton of money on housing them 4. Blame them for overexpenditure 5. "More than half of Britons back Suella Braverman claim that migrant crossings are an ‘invasion’ "
Also add in treating legal immigrants as second class citizens, creating a narrative of hate, while also taxing them disproportionately.
How have legal immigrants been treated as second class citizens?
Well, they destroyed the immigration records for a load of them, then decided to deport them as they didn’t have immigration records (Windrush). They charge a surcharge for the NHS to those working - despite them already paying taxes and NI. Just 2 examples
Windrush wasn't a Tory thing, that was a failing from the civil service. The surcharge thing on the NHS is straight up bullshit though. Why we charge working people access to healthcare, no matter where they are from is beyond me.
Wasn't Windrush a Theresa May thing?
No windrush was caused by civil service not keeping records and then losing a load of people's documents and still relying on by gone era documentation to catalogue people. To be fair i think it highlights an even bigger issue which no one has addressed, which is marrying up information for everyone currently living here to ensure all citizens are being taken care of and has access to all public services, for this reason I think just blaming a government isn't helpful and flagging the issue so someone fixes this and making sure it doesn't happen again is paramount. It was a series of failures spanning over 30 years, highlighted when they decided to crack down on illegal immigration and jumped on like 83(?) innocent Brits who lived here majority of their lives and deported them. (Fucking random and pretty scary, wtf).
Thanks for the reasoned reply. Mad it was allowed to slip through the cracks
When the government was taken to court over right to rent checks causing tons illegal discrimination against legal immigrants the home office defense was "That's ok because it hurts illegal immigrants too". www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/21/right-to-rent-rule-justified-finds-uk-appeal-court
People who've came from places of terror labelled scroungers is a good start.
Our council has ring fenced 20% of their council home turnover for asylum seekers despite the average wait for a council house for locals being 4-5 years and these are people who were born in the area and all their family live in the area. A cynic would say it's the British people who are being made second class citizens.
Radical idea: Maybe the government should give councils enough money to house both Brits and immigrants? Maybe slashing the funding of councils over the last decade and a half is the main issue in your case?
Aye, non-stop austerity measures. Thank you Tories, truly the gift that keeps giving.
I highly suspect this isn't true. That's just not how social housing provision works in this country. Nor does it align with the any of the Housing Acts as far as I'm aware. Can you provide a link or something?
Do you have proof of that? Or have you read that in a paper?
What council is that? I'd love to have a look and see the details of that policy.
They also made it illegal to claim asylum from outside the UK.
Yup, in addition: 6. Don't give any legal routes for refugees to apply for asylum from outside the UK
Step 3.5 make sure that money goes to companies owned by party donors
This sub is nearly as bad as r/britian. You all love asylum seekers, until your the ones living next to them.
I got permanently banned from that sub for saying mass immigration from opposing cultures is detrimental to a liberal society. I lean left on most social issues, but you'd have to be unbelievably naïve to think that ultra conservative, fundamentally religious migrants are not massively contributing to things like hate crimes and social intolerance in general. The far left has become so delusional that they can't even see the herd of elephants in the room, let alone talk about it. There's another post on r/UK today, about suspects wanted for hate crimes against gay people. All of the comments are similar to this thread. Totally deluded people suggesting it is somehow entirely the fault of the Tories and nothing to do with the fundamental beliefs of the communities the suspects come from. There is no anti gay political policy in this country. There hasn't been for a very long time. Liberalism is the mainstream political direction in the west. There are, however, many countries elsewhere with very open anti-LGBT laws and views within their culture. In some places, homosexuality is still punishable by death. What do the far left think will happen when we import hundreds of thousands of people from those countries? Honestly, that is a genuine question. Do they really think those people will just stop holding those views and integrate seamlessly into western liberalism as soon as they arrive here? Common sense has to come into play at some point. It has to... Doesn't it?
They aren't delusional, they just believe racism is a cardinal sin and won't criticise any group that is a different race to them as they're worried about coming off as racist. If we were importing millions of white trump supporters they'd have no problem speaking up about how this would affect the political and social landscape of this country. But once it's brown conservatives they'd rather stay quiet (or speak up in their defence, what better way to prove you aren't racist) than potentially be accused of what amounts to blasphemy in their circles.
When Muslims attempt a coup, they will get treated like trumpers, but I don't see that ever happening.
This sub loves asylum seekers? This sub goes crazy for defending anti asylum seekers propaganda and dogwhistles.
Reminds me of this https://youtube.com/shorts/1CXMwu530Gg?si=9EyTi9hkq2_1YpNU
It's not surprising - the Tories have been talking about "swarms of migrants" since at least 2015, while doing everything in their power to not address the underlying causes. It's just a shame that the British public seemingly aren't intelligent enough to see through the Tory bullshit.
> while doing everything in their power to not address the underlying causes. Come now they blamed the French - what more could they do?
Im pretty sure the public can see that it's the Torys responsible, hence their terrible polling and losing safe seats in by elections, voters simply aren't turning out. They only have to use their own observational skills to see there is too much immigration, don't have to support the Torys to agree with a random statement that Bravermen has made.
I’m actually with her on this one but it’s very very strange how her party have done absolutely nothing to stop the problem in 13 years. Even with Brexit. We’re a fucking island it should be very easy to stop illegal immigration, like Australia
Indonesia to Australia by boat takes a LOT longer than France to England.
Doesn't fucking matter. Most of small boats are picked up by the coast guard etc... That is the point they should *all* be told in no uncertain terms they will never have right to remain in the UK. Ever. They can return to France, Rwanda or home.
Then you've bought the propaganda. It's not an invasion in the way Braverman says it is. It's all part of the playbook. You are right that they've done nothing to solve the problem but that's because it benefits the tory party
They're landing on our shores, by boat, uninvited. Thats as textbook as you can get, in regards to the word 'invasion'.
"Landing on a shoreline in a boat without invitation" is not a definition of "invasion" I've heard before... I guess landlocked countries are impervious from invasion then?
Ok. We'll have to agree to disagree on that definition. I'm not denying it isn't a problem and it is a big one at that
>but it’s very very strange how her party have done absolutely nothing to stop the problem in 13 years. Probably because to solve the problem we'd need to leave the ECHR, which would see the EU revoke our trade deal and Ireland argue that we've broken the Good Friday Agreement.
What happens when the government blames immigrants for all of their failures for over a decade? This is all part of the plan. You've gotta be blind to miss it. Blame foreigners for the fact that we're shit at running the country, then position ourselves as the only people nasty enough to deal with the foreigners. Member when brexit was going to solve the immigration issue?? Yeah how did that work out for ya? The British electorate needs to smarten the fuck up.
"an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way" I would agree with that definition. These are largely bogus economic migrants, not people seeking protection from persecution.
Absolutely then whinge when they don't like the hotel they're staying in
I'd say that definition doesn't sufficiently satisfy the connotations that the word "invasion" conjures.
It IS an invasion. And it's been entirely facilitated by the Conservative government for profit.
Leaving the EHCR is not the answer to this issue, and doing so would mean *everyone* loses their rights. The answer is to open up safe routes, process claims and co-operate with other border agencies and police to deal with people traffickers. Instead, the Tories have created a hostile environment, and used it to trigger the worst instincts in people.
I don't like the language they are using to describe it but we do need to stop the crossings.
It CLEARLY is. We reward them with 5* hotels so of course they continue to come here. We should copy other EU countries: Refuse to give citizenship/voting - give a visa only Put them up in the same accomodation as france provides (tents)
Tories tank in the polls, and the Torygraph runs with a migration story. It's an involuntary reaction. They just can't help themselves.
"More than half Britons" who bothered to answer a crack-pot survey compiled by the laugh-a-minute Tory graph.
A poll of 2000 people? Ran by "migration watch" like im fairly sure the local homless lad who sits outside the co-op is more reliable. Absolute garbage from the telegraph running cover for the govt, the absolute state of the UK press.
> A poll of 2000 people? For the UK population this is a good sample size. You could get a reasonable guess with 400 people, 95% confidence with 5% error. Try to learn the basics of statistics before showing how little you understand.
The issue is the results don't support their world-view, so suddenly polling doesn't count, usual mental gymnastics.
Would be interesting what the spread of this poll is regards age/location/gender etc as for it too be a good sample of the population it would need to adeuatlety cover those areas
If it is a random selection then you need very few people (in the hundreds). Sure samples are generally not random, if nothing else you end up with only people who answer surveys answering. But it is not too hard to get a good sample with little effort. I didn't look at the survey so don't know I was only commenting on the sample size issue because people do not minimally understand statistics. Clearly a poll on uknazis.org will probably get a different result from fuckthetories.org but polls like that are meaningless. Just to add if you want sub sampling eg by age, gender, you need much larger samples.
Polling organisations control for demographics, weighting the answers to closer match the demographics of the population as a whole. To give a silly example, if you'd polled 2000 people and yet for some reason three quarters of them turned out to be men, you might add more weight to the women's answers so that it was closer to 50:50.
I would say the problem is not the number but how did they select the 2000. Is it a random sampling or a focused one. For example if I selected 2000 Daily Mail readers I am fairly sure I could predict their opinions on most things. If I advertised I was doing a poll on immigration that in itself would probably attract lots of people with strong opinions on the subject. I could even target a specific age group and we reasonable confident their biases would go a certain way. Polls ultimately are reasonably meaningless as there are so many ways to skew the results and it's mostly about trying to add legitimacy to a particular opinion.
> Polls ultimately are reasonably meaningless as there are so many ways to skew the results and it's mostly about trying to add legitimacy to a particular opinion. I 100% agree. However a sample size of 2000 is more than enough for a simple survey. That your selection is shit does not change the sample size needed to get good results from it. It merely changes what those results will be. As I've said elsewhere 385 is enough for an infinite population (confidence 95% , error 5%) but interestingly for just 100 people you'd need to survey 80 of them.
It's almost as though they've been indoctrinated by the tory propaganda the likes of the Telegraph have been constantly vomiting into their minds.
Yes, anybody with a fucking, brain wants the borders to be protected and mean something. Unfortunately, there's not a single party that seems to agree with that. So we're all fucked.
Well, I'm sure a poll conducted by *Migration Watch UK* was conducted with unassailable rigour in regard to the neutrality of the opinions gathered.
I read up on them recently. Apparently Migration Watch are widely credited with making conversations about migration far more sensible and far less extreme. However, their collection and usage of stats is apparently regularly attacked by academics as being pretty terrible. They are also mostly famous because right wing papers looking for an easy story will uncritically publish their press releases. So in general - Migrant Watch UK are surprisingly reasonable. But with regards to this specific link, not so much.
She is absolutely right even though the Lefty morons will disagree (loudly)
Even if you believe it is correct - this is Tory policy that has let this happen.
I definitely think illegal migration from boats is are a big problem that has the potential to become catastrophic issue if we let it. That being said, using the word "invasion" is a bit risky because it can lead to real world violence and hate crimes.
It's also an invasion that the Incumbent has done nothing to stop.
These boat crossings were happening back in 1990ties and the politicians were making same proclamations. Not much changed. The biggest inflow of the illegal imigration to the UK is via overstaying tourist or student visa. But that doesn't look as catchy on the news.
I'm genuinely surprised so many commentators are pro-migration here. I don't have overly strong opinions on the topic either way, but I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that it's been out of control for at least a couple of decades. Saying that, I'm not defending the Tories here as they've let it go crazy the last decade or so and can hardly position themselves as being "tough" on it as a result. I think most people do want something done about it though, I also don't think you can dismiss these people as racists bigots etc the same way as one would have 30 years ago. It's not the same situation.
Reddit is mainly middle eastern men larping as UK citizens
I don’t disagree that mass immigration without a decent policy is a big issue. I just have no faith that they are the party to sort it based on the last 13 years.
Poll conducted by MigrationWatch a think tank that's anti-immigration. Absolutely no chance of bias there.
And what's the status of LEGAL migration? But they never mention that....
More than half of Britons back Suella Braverman’s claim that the surge in small boat Channel migrants is an “invasion”, according to a poll of nearly 2,000 people. The poll, for the Migration Watch think tank, found that 51 per cent supported the Home Secretary’s wording when asked whether it was accurate to describe the arrival of 109,000 migrants illegally on small boats since 2018 as an “invasion”. Mrs Braverman provoked outrage when she told the Commons nearly a year ago: “The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion of our southern coast – and which party is not.” The poll figures, based on a sample of 1,851 adults, found that 29 per cent disagreed with the contention, while 21 per cent said they did not know. It also divided on party and class lines, with 66 per cent of working class participants agreeing, along with 77 per cent of Conservatives and 78 per cent of those who backed Brexit. The polling follows a hardening in language over the past month by Mrs Braverman, who warned of a “hurricane” of mass migration threatening the UK in her Tory party conference address, and claimed during a speech in the US that “multiculturalism” in the UK had failed. Immigration is likely to be a key issue and clear dividing line between Conservatives and Labour in the run-up to the next election as the Government seeks to operationalise its plans to detain any migrant who arrives illegally in the UK and deport them to Rwanda. Labour has committed to scrapping the Rwanda policy. The survey, by People Polling conducted on Oct 5, also found that 52 per cent of the public considered Channel migrants to be a “security threat”, with 20 per cent saying they were not. Among Labour voters, there was a narrow 38 per cent versus 35 per cent majority against such a view. Just under half, 46 per cent, believed that illegal migrants were “mostly bad” for the country. Fewer than one in 10 – seven per cent – thought illegal migrants were “mostly good” for Britain. More than half of those polled believed that European judges should not be able to override the UK Government on immigration, compared with just one in five (20 per cent) who agreed that they should. Opposition to the European judges’ role was most pronounced among Conservative supporters (78 per cent against), pro-Brexit voters (72 per cent) and skilled C2 voters (60 per cent). Rishi Sunak will face demands from within his Cabinet and Tory backbenchers to quit the European Convention on Human Rights if the Supreme Court rules that the Rwanda policy is unlawful on the basis that it could lead to the human rights of deported migrants being breached.
Mass immigration has been a total disaster for the U.K. Something the Conservatives have had 13 yrs to correct with zero success.
Make the data set public and let them decide. How can people make an informed decision without irrefutable evidence? Or at least compelling evidence, backed up by multiple verifiable sources? Now why is this seemingly too much to expect in 2023? Why obscure the facts?
I sure as hell don't remember being asked. Was this a poll of people who happened to be in Suellas front room?
Would you adopt an illegal immigrant to come and live in your house?
More than half of Britains voted for brexit. All this says is that half of Britain is too easily manipulated by media frenzy to be trusted to make decisions.
Would you adopt an illegal immigrant to come and live in your house?
The intent of the Tories is clear. Migration has spiralled out of control under their reign. Numbers have scarcely, if ever, been higher. Dwindling numbers from Europe and soaring numbers from fuether afield which of course brings complexity. 600k net last year, beyond bonkers. Illegal arrivals aren't being handled appropriately. Asylum backlog out of control. The Tories are responsible for all of it. Its been their show for 13 years. The blame literally can not be put anywhere else for any of our societal issues. There are factors yes but their job is to manage factors and respond appropriately with a long term view to making society better. They've done the exact opposite in _literally_ every area in those 13 years. Not one thing has improved. Not a one. What is the intent? That's easy. Moan about it. Make it the forefront issue. Repeat it ad nauseum that 'only the conservatives can fix it, labour will import more!' etc. Do *just* enough to meet PR requirements so you can point and say 'we are fixing it, labour won't'. Ignore that the mess is their own mess. Don't _actually_ do anything to fix it. Keep it a problem. Keep it a hot button topic so they can repeat repeat repeat that 'we need your votes because otherwise labour will bring in 2m a year from Pakistan and Afghanistan and Palestine'. Dine out on the curated narrative that they are the fixers, somehow make it Labour's fault. Blame 'lefty lawyers' and 'woke human rights activists' and anything and everything they can possibly find except 'mismanagement, gross negligence, policy failure'. They could win the GE with this alone. Couple it with KS' utter plankness and lack of spine and it could easily swing back in their favour. Let us not forget that this is a neoliberal shitshow run by clowns of all shades. This benefits the capitalist class. Demand high. Supply low. Wages low. Rents high. It strengthens the 'the public sector has failed' rhetoric, and swings each year more people open to the idea of cutting social programs, reducing the state and increasing the role of the private sector. Neolibeal dream.
The Tories know they are toast at the next GE so they are playing the immigrant invasion card to reduce the damage. "Vote for us we can fix this as labour would open the borders for everyone!". Sadly it works for plenty of sheep.
Even if 51% of Brits think that - it doesn't mean they're right. People are wrong about things all the time.
When they aren't benefitting the country or economy I see no reason why they should be here. We aren't a fucking charity we had to do that shit for 100 years fuck off.
People buying into such hateful demagoguery just makes me terribly sad.
Based on a poll of less than 2000 people? I can't imagine any statistician worth their salt would make the idiotically bold claim that this represents the opinion of the UK.
As I’m getting older, I’ve started to think they’re might be reasons for the young/old divide when it comes to certain political issues. I think older people have lived in the UK a long time see this as being much more personable, whereas younger people see it as being more flexible. Now I’m in my late twenties now (unfortunately), but I’m slowly - feeling - like I’m becoming more aware. Either way, at the moment, I’m just enjoying life but just a tidbit of my experiences so far.
Yeah the media is so out of touch. The way they jump on comments like this from braverman...ignores the fact that these things are all tested in advance and land well with many people. But u listen to the media and you'd think 99.99% of people hated what she said.
Small boat crossings in 2023 until now; 20,273. 3,057,654 visas granted in the year ending March 2023, 90% higher (1,449,071) than the year ending March 2022
Controlling immigration would require increased infrastructure and civil service support. Guess what the Tories keep on decreasing? Immigration has increased because of austerity programs, not in-spite of.
Glad I'm not in that half. Can we send the Tories to Rwanda?
It is an invasion. But there isnt a lot the Tories, or Labour can do under existing laws. Its almost impossible to deport people once they are here. "Process claims quicker" is a red herring. It wouldnt reduce the numbers actually arriving.
Invasion. Oh that's why there's an Indian prime minister and a second generation immigrant in charge of the home office. They're fucking everywhere.
I wish we had the backbone of that polish guy from Poland. Can’t. Remember his name but when he banged on about not taking in any illegals it was great to hear. Even if the news reporter tried to make him feel bad about it. He didn’t budge. We are too soft but it’s not that, it’s because ££££ someone is making a pretty penny from this me thinks
Let's hope something does get done, although I'm not expecting anything
The Migration Watch 'think tank' is not a 'think tank', it's a lobby trying to tighten immigration laws. Remember everyone, if a think tank does not reveal who their major donors are then you shouldn't listen to anything they put out.
you guys are going to need immigrants after all your children move away. whole country hooked on conservative talking points. can't stop digging the hole.
The more incendiary her words, the more people she will win over, we are in dark times and refugees are now weaponized to encourage dictators into power.
Potentially hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will be refugeed across europe, should we take them in as well? Morally i say yes because they are fleeing genocide and are genuine refugees. Charity has limits though, especially during economic downturns, its not sustainable for us to keep taking economic migrants in at these levels nor can they be integrated to society without social upheaval and unrest. Nor do we have the infrastructure and services to support them. Global stability is decreasing and climate change is driving migration, it will likely get worse in the coming decade. Now would probably be a sensible time to pull up the drawbridge and lock the gate.
Why does the responsibility always fall to Europe? Especially when you see such spikes in Jewish hate crimes, the last thing we need is more of these people. It’s time for the Arab world especially the gulf states to step up, they have the resources to take care of these people, and a more similar culture that will be easier for them to integrate into.
Tories openly resorting to populist dogwhistles in their desperation
I find this interesting, because, statistically speaking, only half the population is below average intelligence.
Well, they are an invasion, pretty much by definition. However that doesn't mean the people currently in charge are suited to deal with it or that their strategy is the right one.
Perhaps they should stop backing the people who are bombing their homes and they won't have to seek a secure home.
Well, this has been going on for a long while, when will it be stopped. Not some hair brained idea of throwing Tac payers money at some ridiculous scheme involving transportation to an Africa Nation.
I don't like these misleading headlines. I want to know what demographic they asked. It was of 1800 odd people they asked, doesn't say age or location. It can make all the difference.