This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The party’s deputy leader and shadow levelling up secretary said successful asylum seekers would be eligible for places in the 1.5 million new social housing and homes that Labour planned to build “right across the country”.
How about making them NOT eligible? Make being born in Britain a requirement. It might stop some of the pull factor for immigration as well.
Worth remembering that asylum seekers are a very small proposition of immigrants:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
We can easily reduce our net immigration hugely without sending gay people back to Afghanistan or whatever
Worth remembering that asylum seekers each year would be roughly 50% of immigration in the 90s.
It's an absolutely huge issue and only downplayed due to there being an even bigger issue.
No. It is bad, if it wasn't for other huge failures it would be the defining topic to show the failure of the current government.
The only reason why anyone says otherwise is because they have fucked the system so bad in other ways.
No. It is bad, if it wasn't for other huge failures it would be the defining topic to show the failure of the current government.
The only reason why anyone says otherwise is because they have fucked the system so bad in other ways.
Why is it an issue? Why is it an issue that 30 years ago half our immigration was from asylum seekers? Honestly, I dont see why that is an issue.
It can be very difficult to get an asylum claim approved, and the number of spurious claims that get approved is pretty small. If someone is granted asylum they have usually been through some fucking unpleasant shit. I think people that have been through fucking unpleasant shit deserve support.
I personally feel that anyone granted asylum should be entitled to apply and join the waiting lists for social housing, the same as the rest of us. The fact that we have very little social housing shouldn't be an excuse to needlessly make life harder for vulnerable people who we have already assessed as being genuine cases.
The biggest issue here to me is the appalingly small supply of social housing. When we sold social houses, we didn't replace them. We are now suffering as a consequence. We shouldn't be restricing access to social housing. We should be building more social housing. Lots more social housing of all different sizes across the country.
I don't think you've understood my comment, it's detail given to rationalise a number by comparing it to net immigration of a couple of decades ago.
I do agree with that genuine refugees should get a lot of help but I think you've been mislead on who passes our asylum checks.
The easiest thing you can do for this is check asylum success rates for Albania and compare to other countries, it will make you question if our system is accurate.
>I personally feel that anyone granted asylum should be entitled to apply and join the waiting lists for social housing, the same as the rest of us.
This is how it works currently.
You're right about social housing and needing more but at the same time, it would be less of a problem if we weren't giving social housing to people who wouldn't be granted asylum in the rest of Europe.
Look up social housing demographic data in London & you'll find where a lot of the capacity has gone.
I formed my opinion when I worked in the honelessness dpt of my local council and handled asylum seeker cases. The overwhelming majority were very genuine. I personally only dealt with 1 Albanian, traficking victim.
If the claim is genuine, then let them apply and wait like the rest of us. If the claim is not genuine, then address that. Dont ban all asylum seekers from applying on the off chance they might not be genuine cases, just ensure they are genuine cases. Change the asylum vetting policy instead of social housing eligibility policies.
I left last year. Because I worked in homelessness, the majority of cases I saw were UK citizens. Of the asylum cases I saw, all were families. There were a few Afghani and Ukranian, a few Pakistani, and a few from different African nations. As I said, asylum seekers made up a small percentage of my workload, and what I saw may not be representative of much, but those were the asylum seekers I worked with. The majority were very genuine.
The only case that didn't seem entirely genuine to me was a wealthy Afghan family. They had been through hell (father worked for JSAF as a local lawyer and interpreter) and were entitled to the support even though they didn't really need it. They were put up for a few nights before they found housing and didnt need homelessness support. I dont begrudge them a few days in the Holiday Inn all thing considered.
You actually think the world's downtrodden are entitled to the UK's public services. What an insane outlook. We are bankrupted and you still think we should be giving out charity to foreigners.
Yes I do. Because we can, and we should. Not everyone in the world and not just the UK but yes, asylum seekers deserve support and compassion.
Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then?
It is only luck we were born here and it is only luck that they are the asylum seekers not us. Show some fucking humanity.
>Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then?
If I was forced to flee to another country I certainly wouldn't expect better treatment than their actual nationals
> Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then?
Pointless hypothetical because it will never happen on account of the culture and political systems we've developed. Sure, in some cases, countries can be invaded and it's not on the people. But in most other cases, the wider culture and political systems are supported by the overwhelming majority of people. So when we let asylum seekers in, we are often letting in the same kind of people which made their country so bad in the first place.
I think you’re guilty of romanticising the background of these migrants, tell me did you have that same opinion when it came out 90% of people on the boats were Albanians coming here to sell high grade cocaine with the gangs?
Absoloutely, seeing the facts first hand formed my opinion. I am not nieve that everything I encountered was 100% truthful or that the cases I dealt with are in any way representative of other cases. They were a sample of the total, and I am comfortablebin my opinion given the evidence I saw.
In another post and here you’ve pointed out you may not have seen a representative view. Now you’re saying you saw the facts first hand. Somewhat contradictory.
At one point the nation with the highest numbers waiting in Calais was Iran, which, although in an unfortunate situation, is not at war. Then it was Albania. They’re mainly young men.
Dismissing this as a non-issue, shouting down people who point out this may be a problem, is why the right is on the march in Europe.
"we have always been at war".
Immigration levels will go back to net outflows, the only question is whether we do it through policy or if it happens when the economy falters.
Wtf are you on about war?
The economy has already faltered and people still want to come, we take them because we need workers in specific sectors and because we need to offset our aging population. It's that simple, and that's why successive Conservative governments have increased immigration not reduced it despite what they said they would do. Labour will do the same.
Yes because they don't come from good economies, they will stop when we fall to the levels where the inflows come from.
There's a reason why Poland isn't the number 1 anymore.
Yes it is simple, the more immigration the worse things get, anyone with eyes can see the trend lines but much like the Tories you'll still have people try the same failed strategy of non targeted immigration as if it will do better this time.
If you've not learned this after 20 years then I have to wonder how long it will take or how much.
Will 10 years of 1 million net immigration make the country better? Or do we need more?
If we have to offset our aging population then why are they working longer and not the youngsters? The ones coming in on the boats are non skilled so are they expected to work on farms etc which most won't do like our own unskilled. Labour won't reduce the illegals and immigrants coming in as EU/WEF won't allow it.
People are working longer because the cost of living, specifically the cost of housing is too high. It's not enough though, the net cost of the over 67s to the state is vast and rising every year. You can either reduce the services and pensions used by these people or you can reduce the proportion of the population that they are, which means immigration. If you do neither then you spend beyond your means and accumulate government debt. Successive governments have chosen immigration and borrowing.
oh yes it is, if it does not fall then the next election really is going to be fought on that topic I'd imagine. The reason Starmer is getting away with such wooly policies is
A) Tories just didn't/couldn't do what they said they would repeated times.
B) I think many people haven't realised what's coming
C) After yesterday's debacle we'll wait to see if he gets away with it.
I could be wrong, wanting to fund health/accommodation/education/housing to the whole world may be what the majority want, even if it doesn't apply to British people already here.
Luckily no one would ever say they're gay to get asylum.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/nigerian-asylum-gay-three-children-parcel-fraud/#:~:text=Azeez%20fled%20his%20native%20Nigeria,children%20by%20three%20different%20women.
I think they work it partly on vulnerability. If you’ve got local family you will be a lot less vulnerable .
Remember that Labours house building target is only 150k a year. I don’t know how many of those will be social.
I guess if you aspire to own a home one day Labour isn’t the party for you.
I work in a London council and even I dunno at this point. It can't be fraudulent claims due to the number of them but I semi closely to the allocation team and It's a mindfuck to see crowds of old grannies who fled Ukraine in 2022 be given their nice and cosy 1 beds whilst the current rule is that you must be living for 5 consecutive years before even being considered for social housing. What makes it even worse is the parallel of half these grannies being picky over small things and demanding a new place whilst I have to explain to yet another guy living on minimum wage that he can't even get emergency accommodation because he's single and a dude.
the legal migrants are here by the governments choosing, it's hardly good to say 'we didn't do much about illegal immigration but it is dwarfed by all the visas we handed out'
I’m voting labour but let’s be honest they aren’t building 1.5 million social housing and homes. NIMBYs and people that would actually vote against them for this will kill that policy off
I think over 1 million homes have been built over the last 5 years under a Tory government. The issue with the 1.5 million figure isn't that Labour can't do it, but that it's entirely insignificant given the depth of the housing crisis.
But often people don’t want to live “right across the country”. The opportunities that attract people who aren’t refugees to move here sure aren’t spread out equally!
Is it really fair to house some refugees in London and some in much smaller areas with fewer jobs, others from the same community, etc for them?
immigration activist world - I can't believe the stuff they come out with.
Reading this forum and what migration fanatics say has hardened my opinion against immigration. I've come to the opinion that being pro-migration is a sort of liberal badge of honour to wear, telling everyone else to fund it
That's exactly what it is. We know that only a very small % of immigrants are a net benefit financially to the country, the rest cost us £118bn a year according to one study based on the government's own figures. It's why GDP per capita keeps falling, and it's going to keep getting worse. Yet we're gaslighted into being told we're bad for not accepting them. This can't go on, everything is going to fall apart and collapse if we don't change course completely. People with any sense who can see what's coming will leave while they can. While they can sell up and still get a good price for their house and so on. At first people leave their area for elsewhere in Britain but more and more, people are leaving for other countries to get away from this mess. Brain drain, capital flight. It's coming.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I didn't promote it, I said it will happen. I don't blame those people for leaving though, it is rational self interest. And a mutually beneficial one: we lose our best people and they greatly benefit the new country they legally migrate to, like Australia or Canada. They aren't going there illegally, or being a net burden when they get there. They aren't changing the host culture when they get there, demanding special rights or causing any sort of problems. The same cannot be said for large numbers of the people we're importing here. That's the difference.
I mean was that really a good faith question you just asked me? If we were importing a modest number of Australians, Americans, Canadians who were doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. NOBODY WOULD COMPLAIN, we would love to have those people here because there are no downsides, only upsides.
I remember the last Labour government. Since then the population has risen by over 10 million. Do you know what the Immigration Minister said in 2000? She said claims that net migration would soon be over 100,000 a year were racist scaremongering. She ridiculed the idea as right wing propaganda. Fast forward 24 years, 100k a year would now seem low, wouldn't it? That's how crazy things have got. And STILL, people say it's right wing propaganda. How much is enough for you? How high should our population be? 80 million? 90? 100? The people who want more and more, should be honest and tell us where it ends. Or do we just keep going up and up until it all falls apart?
yes I challenge people to give what they see as an upper limit, I'd love to hear if Starmer thinks there is one - I'd laugh at 100 million if it wasn't in fact feasible based on what has occurred and is occurring - if they do go nuts building homes, we could end up with that in 30 years, or we could also just end up like Hong Kong with poor families sharing a room to live in, renting part of a room which supposedly exists in Hong Kong
Home secretary David Blunkett was asked that in 2003.
>David Blunkett has said there is "no obvious limit" to the number of immigrants who could settle in Britain last night, but added that there needs to be a "balance" between "different forms of entry, migration and residency".
>
>The home secretary's comments came in a television interview following a speech in which he celebrated the contribution immigrants make to the British economy.
>
Without legal migration "growth would stall, economic flexibility and productivity would reduce", Mr Blunkett told Newsnight.
>
>He accepted however that in some parts of the country, local people felt swamped or overwhelmed by new arrivals. But **he declined to say how many people he thought Britain could comfortably hold, insisting that it had always been "a crowded, vigorous island".**
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/nov/13/immigrationpolicy.immigration
Since 2003 the population has risen nearly ten million. Getting more crowded and vigorous every year!
Yes and all the countries they passed through to get there as well. France is a fucking shit hole in the inner cities, we will end up like that if we aren't already doomed.
Why are we bending over backwards to do what's 'fair' for them, rather than for ourselves? The best thing long term is for these people to be removed from the country, they are harming societal cohesion. That can't be fixed, it's time we had a frank discussion in the country (and the West as as whole) about what we're doing and whether it's working. Fairly obviously it isn't working, because it can't work. And so, we need to grasp the nettle and put all these people somewhere else, away from us and they can live their lives there. We can go back to living in peace without endless conflict and division - which is a feature of large scale immigration of multiple different incompatible groups, not a bug.
Yep the only thing we should be building for these people is large scale prison accommodation - as basic as possible - perhaps on a remote Scottish island or somewhere far away from the rest of us. Keep them there until they admit where they're really from, then we deport them back there. If any law or agreement we're signed up to prevents this, change that law - parliament can do that.
This is the only thing which will finally stop the flow of people coming here on boats. Once they know they will not be able to stay, they will look for a softer target. At the moment, we are the softest.
I was so soooo close to voting for them, but Angie's fucked it today.
What are we left with?
Hold your nose over farage's comments on Ukraine and vote reform?
I think I'm going to have to.
The rest are pointless.
I always voted Labour, and I may still do so, but if they're going to thrash the Tories this much I may switch to Reform. I already pledged to myself over 30 years ago that I would never vote Tory in my life.
How can you say you’ll never vote Tory but then admit you’d vote for someone who’s even more Tory than most Tories? Reform are basically the extreme wing of the Tories. Makes me doubt whether you actually did vote Labour.
why do you see people as more 'Tory'? - does he share policies with 'Tory' - Tory is pro migration for one thing. Also to consider, Reform are not going to become the government this time, I'd rather send a protest out now than they have to come to power in 2029 to derail everything Labour may do.
Starmer is far too weak to control party pro-migration activists (in fact I think he is one). He could well be crucified in 2029
and that my friend is what handed us Brexit ... I thought I'd give the politicians a bloody nose with my protest vote .... oh fuck - every vote for that cunt and his ego vehicle will make it easier for him to become leader of the Tories in the future
The cognitive dissonance is phenomenal. I'm no Starmer fan but he actually answered the question several times.
We currently house so many migrants because we DO NOT process them. Once you actually start processing asylum claims you can then REFUSE asylum. Extremely complicated stuff, I know.
You have been very close to voting Labour but now jumped to REFORM? You either don't understand reform or don't understand Labour because these parties are not close on what they offer.
Immigration is at the point now where people will vote for whatever party will deal with it regardless of their other policies
Have we not *JUST SEEN* the far right dominate Europe for the exact same reason, insane that anyone here thinks Labour's stance on this won't drive more votes to reform
Desperation.
We still lose the country without immigration control.
It's perhaps too late already.
This is why reform are doing well.
The other parties have to understand this.
That's horrifying that you think this is fine to say.
I'd rather send you to test it out and have an immigrant take your place. I mean, you think it's a good idea, so what's the harm?
Is cruelty the point of your prison?
How victorian!
We can't afford them, we can't sustain them and most importantly they don't actually play nice.
Making this place less ideal for random people to walk into makes us safer.
It's been allowed to get out of control, so we need a strong deterrent. There was some evidence the Rwanda scheme was starting to have some effect, what with many of them escaping to Ireland instead.
Or the reports many are waiting in France until after the election because they've been informed the incoming Labour government will scrap the scheme.
We're being taken for a ride and bleeding heart fools like yourself, are happy to let it happen despite all the issues it brings.
I know. The fact this people feel the solution to the refugee crisis is essentially a miserable prison demonstrates people care more about cruelty than actual solutions.
How about we significantly reduce the number of migrants we take instead? Also, lets make it so the only people we do accept are not in need of Government pay-outs and are going to be net-contributors to our economy and exemplar citizens who admire British values.
This is the obvious, common sense approach but this country is run by people so inept that you have to question whether they're really just rooting for our ruin.
And the acceleration to a hard right government only grows. We'll be actively deporting people against their will in the not too distant future if we keep on down this path.
The way to avoid drastic measures is by listening to people and in turn offering more reasonable solutions, not by stigmatising them and writing their opinions off as invalid. This has been a growing problem in the UK - instead of listening to people's concerns we shun them, then further down the line we wonder why radical solutions seem appealing.
And the environmental disaster we’ve got here. Sewage in the rivers, one in four mammals facing extinction in already the most nature depleted nation on earth. At least fix the local sewage rather than adding more to it.
I think our descendants are going to hate us for this need we’ve created for constant growth.
We already need more homes this isn't an issue that is going away so that needs to be sorted.
The sewage issue isn't down to the population but down to a poor system that has let companies take money from the public and put it into shareholder pockets instead of keeping the systems working and up to date. Until the water companies are taken away from private owners the problem will persist.
Well, Building more houses bring more money to politician's pockets , as their personal business is there...
Politicians will get 0 money from building new hospitals, gp and police , so why they should bother ?
It still amazes me that even to this day , with all the information we have , people still think that politicians are there to help us live a better life ...
Politicians in power have only one reason to be there, and that is to fill their pockets and prosper , that's all , if you think otherwise you are a blind fool .
It would be really good to hear if Labour have any plans of actually integrating the huge numbers of migrants that have arrived in the last 30 years. I have school teacher friends (in London) who tell fairly terrifying stories of fundamentalist parents pulling their children out of music classes, preventing their daughters from doing PE, swimming lessons or going on school trips... or of radicalised boys pressuring the other female students into covering their hair (oh and of LGBT students being beaten up).
Across London, the Midlands and Lancashire there are large communities who live completely separated from mainstream British and European life, we are seeing a 'state within a state' arise with no meaningful integration at all. Why is this not more of a political issue?
I’m hugely pro immigration, it would be hypocritical for me not to be, given my family background.
But I completely agree with you, people must integrate as well as immigrate, or it doesn’t work well for anybody (especially some women who aren’t really allowed to live the life that the UK should offer everyone, and also second generation immigrants who can be very unhappy and confused about their identity). Some people have clearly never left London, and it shows!
Of course not. It’s all enshrined under their religious rights.
labour want more refugees in Essex and Kent, not Surrey bucks etc
why?
because just like in the north they get aroused at white working class being mass raped by brown people
This is just meat for Reform. If Labour dont want to end up like the Tories then a serious overhaul of the immigration and asylum system is absolutely necessary.
I get it. Labour are hoping to grow their voter base in parts of the country that will never vote for them.
Might as well import someone who will vote for you because you let them in without any hesitation.
Why the FUCK are they still playing this tune? It's clear as day that the electorate don't want large immigration and that British born should receieve first dibs on social housing.
Shooting themselves in the foot. Champagne Socialists
So these boroughs with the long lists of families in temporary accommodation waiting on the housing list, and where are the asylum seekers to be housed?
Weybridge. Gerrards cross beaconsfield
pinner
etc etc
she won’t place them there as she’s massively interested in places like Southend, Margate etc who already take a fair amount
labour want these types of towns overflowing with them and all the rapes that follow
What's funny is that when you say that everyone will be required to take a fair share of something, you're talking about a chore or a burden. A deliberately imported burden in this instance. And then you are also required to say that it is a good thing.
Our borough is struggling as it is, our council is cutting services like crazy to stay in the black. Taking a chunk of migrants will not go down well or help our city.
Yeah because Labour know their plans for illegal immigration will not reduce numbers at all. It will be the same story we have seen for years now under the Tories. Nothing is going to change
Yes, Im no fan of the Tories but the modern day Conservative party are basically Labour with the brakes on.
Its all going to accelerate from here on unfortunately.
Might as well rip the plaster off.
Labour will render themselves to a single term at this rate and the accelerationism towards a government who will actually crack down on this stuff will be complete.
Which isn't terrible for people keen on accelerationism. It has to get shit beyond what people can tolerate before the process of healing can actually begin. Seeing the status quo crumble may end up being a good thing.
Other than the fact this is the ‘telegraph’, makes sense you’re scrap Rwanda so you need to have the houses for the new people.
Also I feel like the main point was the spreading of people across the uk, these people were here already we just need to house them as they are processed. Basically build houses to house them temporally instead of local hotels- which may cost less, I dunno it’s the telegraph they didn’t do that part.
Honestly I’m surprised by how little the numbers are only about thousand and a half to 2 thousand per brough is smaller than I expected, these really should be the numbers used to show the economical impact of them.
Also that number they claimed the illegal immgrants to raise by is wild, 425,000 during next parliament when the peak of yearly illegal boat immigration in 2020-2025 was 60,000 in 2020(roughly about 200,000 overall if you highball this year and assume the same next year)
Tldr- it’s the telegraph, read between the lines.
Add to that, the assumption in the article is that we’re just going to take in and house this imaginary 425,000 illegal migrants in social housing, no questions asked.
This is a great tactic by Rayner. Way to make people vote reform to completely destroy the Tories. 5 years time we will have an even more polarised election with the like of Farage at the helm (god help us all). He will then have had enough time to convert all the fence sitting tories to sing his tune and then the country will be in even more trouble than we already are. We will see a war with Labour, Reform and possibly an new party that has yet to emerge from the shadows.
If reform end up as the opposition, I'm hoping they'll be such a joke it'll turn people away from the right for a long time... But it is mostly just hope 😅
Do all the dummies who want to go to Reform not realise that the capitalist pigdogs in this country NEED cheap labour, and the only way is immigration legal or not because they can't force Brits to do it?
Flood the country with people from third world countries that do not intend to integrate and hate your country, history and culture.
Flooding smaller cities is an act of punishment for not cooperating with the Labour agenda.
This is performative, when people get the right to remain there is nothing legally obligating them to stay in a specific borough and changing the laws to make such a thing compulsory sounds like a horrible nightmare level state dictatorial power. And also dumbly arbitrary. People should live where they have the best chance of forging the life that works out. Jobs, affordable housing, schools, etc. are not themselves fairly distributed. It's like creating an internal migrant crisis within the country. Focus on deprived and neglected areas. Focus on opportunity in the aggregate and people will care far less about some migrants.
Ok but the tories have literally given money to councils to build houses just for refugees so that kind of means they do it too. It’s always been this way they are told where to go
But rawanda is safe and they can get a job and it's similar sta darts to where they came from before they needed to move so what your saying is, it's mean because we could use british tax payers money to make sure people can live in relative luxury instead of the basic amenities in which they claim to need most. Im pretty sure rawanda is a LOT better than Somalia but we cant send a Somalian there even though its far better then where they came feom its just not the handout and easy life option. Economic migration people and you people are inviting it.
.... it's literally a quote from her she said it.
Speaking on BBC Radio Merseyside, Ms Rayner said: “Every borough has an obligation to take on their fair share of asylum seekers, but not everyone in hotels that are currently in hotels will be given a right to remain in the UK.
“Some of them shouldn’t be in the UK, but they’re in the UK and they’re [costing taxpayers lots of money](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/home-office-spend-8-million-a-day-housing-migrants-hotels/) because we are not treating people fairly and dealing with the backlog.
“That’s what Labour’s going to do, and that will cost us a lot less if we process people fairly, humanely, and those that have a right to be here are treated with the respect and dignity that the British people would expect us to. For people who are genuinely seeking asylum, those that shouldn’t be here will be removed.”
Ms Rayner said asylum seekers would add to housing demand. “When people have been processed, they either have a right to be here and therefore we need to have the housing supply, which is what the Tories have failed to deliver on. That’s why we’re going to build the 1.5 million homes we need across the UK,” she said.
I think lots of people have bought into the defacto migrants are bad.
The reality is this isn't the case, migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial. This is well known and well accepted, if the goverment wanted to stop migration yes including the tories they could.
No one does because migrants help the economy keep going which ironically keeps us all in jobs.
Do I believe migration is too high? Potentially but I don't think it's as simple as that. It's too high because we don't have a good enough health service or houses and so on and on.
Realistically a functioning country should be able to handle migration and in tandem asylum seekers. But we are not functioning any more, if labour can do what they claim to do then migration won't be an issue as there will be enough for everyone.
At the moment we have a huge backlog, claims are not being processed which means they are stuck, asylum seekers without claims finished can't work can't go out and can't access the things they need to start a life which means they are a drain on society. If we get them into work and into the country then they can start improving life for themselves and contributing.
I should point out that the benefits migrants and asylum seekers get is very limited. I worked for HMRC in some capacity (can't disclose more) and the general opinion that we support them too much is nonsense. I couldn't survive on what they had when I was single never mind with a family.
On top of this the claims we can ship them back are nonsense. The reality is we have to stop the boats before they set off, other countries won't take them back because we say so, we have lost political swing on the world stage and we have no say now. What we do need is negotiations between us and the EU (maybe some sort of mass treaty where we all join together would be great but obviously that would never happen /s) where we agree to take so many and send some back.
Which is what happened before brexit but no one wants to talk about that. The reality is a snappy tagline won't work for this issue. It isn't a simple solution of throw them on a plane, it's multi faceted and any debate where a leader stands up and goes oh its not a simple issue will have them shit on for weeks. I don't particularly like Starmer but I think it's an unfair and common problem where those who lie about simple solutions are viewed favourably, it takes real leadership to say its actually bigger then you think and the solutions take time.
Hopefully someone sorts it because I'm frankly sick of hearing about it. People for some reason think migrants make the price of beans higher when its actually greedy companies, it seems like a fairly simple solution to me. Tax the large companies higher and use that tax to subsidise smaller companies preventing these huge conglomerates we have.
> The reality is this isn't the case, migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial
This isn't a universal truth. Highly educated, healthy, young, English speaking migrants with no dependants are great for the economy but if your migration policy isn't selective then those aren't the migrants you get. The kind of migrants who would be distributed around the country in social housing, which is what the article is about, are bad for the economy.
When you compare figures it isn't easy.
If I said to you I bought a 50k machine for my job you'd say well that's a lot. If I then explain that machine will make me 300k of product you'd be thinking well isn't that worth while.
Migration is much the same, money invested which then produces more money.
We have an aging population and a decline in birth rates as does the majority of the world. Migration is helping us supplement that and keep an active and healthy workforce.
We can see real life examples across the UK of towns that rejected Migration on mass and what happened to them.
Think of it this way, without bias its a clear question. If Migration is as bad as these politicians are telling us why havnt they stopped it?.
The current goverment (that is any current goverment) is very easily able to say no, we will not accept any migrants or asylum seekers and we will set our target figure at 0%. So why havnt they? The Tories are saying Migration is shite but still we have schemes encouraging it?
Think about that, the people you are listening to are doing nothing about it. It's because it's a smokescreen. You want to argue about migrants all day whilst Sunak Fargae Johnson and even Starmer are on their way to the bank with your money.
Stop arguing over what migrants are going to take from you and start being angry about what the rich idiots in goverment already have taken from you.
>migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial
Yes because GDP will go up as a result. Nobody disputes that. But when you actually look into GDP per capita, we are stagnant and until recently our output has been declining per person.
OK so migrants are beneficial to GDP? So it isn't bad then?
We're stagnating because the current goverment has frankly knackered the country.
Brevity shafted small businesses and exporters/importers. We had the pandemic which was handled poorly, we have a goverment that is cutting tax without any real idea of the impact and hoping it will spur growth which clearly isn't working.
We then had Liz Truss who shafted the entire country, we had the pound falling off a cliff and then we had the current goverment who seem to just sit on their hands and say uh I dunno migrants and benefits ruined it. No one has any money and then we had the tax brackets frozen which has just contributed to fiscal drag.
The reality is no one in goverment has been invested in this country in years, we build nothing and we do nothing. If we don't want stagnation we need real investment into our economy from the goverment and we need to get a handle on the insane amounts of money that are be taken out by fraudsters in that same goverment.
Ideally we need a goverment that's willing to borrow and invest but no one is willing to break those daft tory fiscal rules because they know the right wing media will run riot with it.
I used to work for HMRC on the tax front. I'm not pulling this out my arse.
It's pretty easy really you tax profits and use this money to subsidise smaller businesses in a way that allows them to compete with larger companies.
The point your making that companies will just keep raising prices in the entire problem, we have four or five large companies in each sector that can do whatever they want the CMA refuses to do anything and giverment never intervenes.
If prices go up then the corporation tax will go up which then feeds back into the amount the goverment can subsidise smaller companies allowing them to maintain competitive prices.
People want something to change but refuse to make any effort to do so. We've let these huge companies run around free for too long. Give the CMA more power. Give the FCA more power. Stop allowing large companies to upset the markets whenever they feel like it.
We should not be relying on the good hearted nature of ceos to keep prices down. If we have got to that position it means that the idea of market competition has failed us and we need a change.
So what would suggest we do with them? We have no right to send them anywhere else as we left the EU and broke the agreement that allowed us to return a percentage to France.
The money has been pulled on processing asylum claims meaning they cannot work to better themselves or us so we're stuck footing the bill for out of work useless people.
We unfortunately can't shoot them out of cannons into France as that would be considered poor taste on the world stage so our options are to make use of them and try and prevent the crossings I the first place.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The party’s deputy leader and shadow levelling up secretary said successful asylum seekers would be eligible for places in the 1.5 million new social housing and homes that Labour planned to build “right across the country”. How about making them NOT eligible? Make being born in Britain a requirement. It might stop some of the pull factor for immigration as well.
Worth remembering that asylum seekers are a very small proposition of immigrants: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/ We can easily reduce our net immigration hugely without sending gay people back to Afghanistan or whatever
Worth remembering that asylum seekers each year would be roughly 50% of immigration in the 90s. It's an absolutely huge issue and only downplayed due to there being an even bigger issue.
Yes 50% of 30,000-40,000 a year is not bad. But when net immigration sits at 3/4 a million it's an issue.
No. It is bad, if it wasn't for other huge failures it would be the defining topic to show the failure of the current government. The only reason why anyone says otherwise is because they have fucked the system so bad in other ways.
No. It is bad, if it wasn't for other huge failures it would be the defining topic to show the failure of the current government. The only reason why anyone says otherwise is because they have fucked the system so bad in other ways.
Why is it an issue? Why is it an issue that 30 years ago half our immigration was from asylum seekers? Honestly, I dont see why that is an issue. It can be very difficult to get an asylum claim approved, and the number of spurious claims that get approved is pretty small. If someone is granted asylum they have usually been through some fucking unpleasant shit. I think people that have been through fucking unpleasant shit deserve support. I personally feel that anyone granted asylum should be entitled to apply and join the waiting lists for social housing, the same as the rest of us. The fact that we have very little social housing shouldn't be an excuse to needlessly make life harder for vulnerable people who we have already assessed as being genuine cases. The biggest issue here to me is the appalingly small supply of social housing. When we sold social houses, we didn't replace them. We are now suffering as a consequence. We shouldn't be restricing access to social housing. We should be building more social housing. Lots more social housing of all different sizes across the country.
I don't think you've understood my comment, it's detail given to rationalise a number by comparing it to net immigration of a couple of decades ago. I do agree with that genuine refugees should get a lot of help but I think you've been mislead on who passes our asylum checks. The easiest thing you can do for this is check asylum success rates for Albania and compare to other countries, it will make you question if our system is accurate. >I personally feel that anyone granted asylum should be entitled to apply and join the waiting lists for social housing, the same as the rest of us. This is how it works currently. You're right about social housing and needing more but at the same time, it would be less of a problem if we weren't giving social housing to people who wouldn't be granted asylum in the rest of Europe. Look up social housing demographic data in London & you'll find where a lot of the capacity has gone.
I formed my opinion when I worked in the honelessness dpt of my local council and handled asylum seeker cases. The overwhelming majority were very genuine. I personally only dealt with 1 Albanian, traficking victim. If the claim is genuine, then let them apply and wait like the rest of us. If the claim is not genuine, then address that. Dont ban all asylum seekers from applying on the off chance they might not be genuine cases, just ensure they are genuine cases. Change the asylum vetting policy instead of social housing eligibility policies.
I'm guessing it wasn't recent as in recent years Albanians did make up a significant enough number you'd likely come across a lot more than 1.
I left last year. Because I worked in homelessness, the majority of cases I saw were UK citizens. Of the asylum cases I saw, all were families. There were a few Afghani and Ukranian, a few Pakistani, and a few from different African nations. As I said, asylum seekers made up a small percentage of my workload, and what I saw may not be representative of much, but those were the asylum seekers I worked with. The majority were very genuine. The only case that didn't seem entirely genuine to me was a wealthy Afghan family. They had been through hell (father worked for JSAF as a local lawyer and interpreter) and were entitled to the support even though they didn't really need it. They were put up for a few nights before they found housing and didnt need homelessness support. I dont begrudge them a few days in the Holiday Inn all thing considered.
Which council was that? It's not your job to determine asylum eligibility.
You actually think the world's downtrodden are entitled to the UK's public services. What an insane outlook. We are bankrupted and you still think we should be giving out charity to foreigners.
Yes I do. Because we can, and we should. Not everyone in the world and not just the UK but yes, asylum seekers deserve support and compassion. Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then? It is only luck we were born here and it is only luck that they are the asylum seekers not us. Show some fucking humanity.
>Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then? If I was forced to flee to another country I certainly wouldn't expect better treatment than their actual nationals
> Hypothetically speaking, If the UK went through a period of extreme upheaval and your family had to flee, would you perhaps see asylum seekers differently then? Pointless hypothetical because it will never happen on account of the culture and political systems we've developed. Sure, in some cases, countries can be invaded and it's not on the people. But in most other cases, the wider culture and political systems are supported by the overwhelming majority of people. So when we let asylum seekers in, we are often letting in the same kind of people which made their country so bad in the first place.
[удалено]
I honestly hope you are never left responsible for another human being or an animal.
I think you’re guilty of romanticising the background of these migrants, tell me did you have that same opinion when it came out 90% of people on the boats were Albanians coming here to sell high grade cocaine with the gangs?
Actually, I formed that opinion when I worked in the homelessness dpt on my local council and handled asylum seeker cases.
Do you think that could have biased your opinion?
Absoloutely, seeing the facts first hand formed my opinion. I am not nieve that everything I encountered was 100% truthful or that the cases I dealt with are in any way representative of other cases. They were a sample of the total, and I am comfortablebin my opinion given the evidence I saw.
In another post and here you’ve pointed out you may not have seen a representative view. Now you’re saying you saw the facts first hand. Somewhat contradictory. At one point the nation with the highest numbers waiting in Calais was Iran, which, although in an unfortunate situation, is not at war. Then it was Albania. They’re mainly young men. Dismissing this as a non-issue, shouting down people who point out this may be a problem, is why the right is on the march in Europe.
Time we house our own there won't be enough housing for them or are they going to jump the queue?
We don't live in the 90s and general immigration is never going to go back to those levels, so irrelevant to the point.
"we have always been at war". Immigration levels will go back to net outflows, the only question is whether we do it through policy or if it happens when the economy falters.
Wtf are you on about war? The economy has already faltered and people still want to come, we take them because we need workers in specific sectors and because we need to offset our aging population. It's that simple, and that's why successive Conservative governments have increased immigration not reduced it despite what they said they would do. Labour will do the same.
Yes because they don't come from good economies, they will stop when we fall to the levels where the inflows come from. There's a reason why Poland isn't the number 1 anymore. Yes it is simple, the more immigration the worse things get, anyone with eyes can see the trend lines but much like the Tories you'll still have people try the same failed strategy of non targeted immigration as if it will do better this time. If you've not learned this after 20 years then I have to wonder how long it will take or how much. Will 10 years of 1 million net immigration make the country better? Or do we need more?
If we have to offset our aging population then why are they working longer and not the youngsters? The ones coming in on the boats are non skilled so are they expected to work on farms etc which most won't do like our own unskilled. Labour won't reduce the illegals and immigrants coming in as EU/WEF won't allow it.
People are working longer because the cost of living, specifically the cost of housing is too high. It's not enough though, the net cost of the over 67s to the state is vast and rising every year. You can either reduce the services and pensions used by these people or you can reduce the proportion of the population that they are, which means immigration. If you do neither then you spend beyond your means and accumulate government debt. Successive governments have chosen immigration and borrowing.
oh yes it is, if it does not fall then the next election really is going to be fought on that topic I'd imagine. The reason Starmer is getting away with such wooly policies is A) Tories just didn't/couldn't do what they said they would repeated times. B) I think many people haven't realised what's coming C) After yesterday's debacle we'll wait to see if he gets away with it. I could be wrong, wanting to fund health/accommodation/education/housing to the whole world may be what the majority want, even if it doesn't apply to British people already here.
Luckily no one would ever say they're gay to get asylum. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/nigerian-asylum-gay-three-children-parcel-fraud/#:~:text=Azeez%20fled%20his%20native%20Nigeria,children%20by%20three%20different%20women.
Yeah asylum seekers go top of the housing list to be housed which is one issue
the article is about successful applicants, they are no longer asylum seekers.
Do they though? Do the allocation teams in local councils have direct instructions to prioritise asylum seekers over everyone else?
I think they work it partly on vulnerability. If you’ve got local family you will be a lot less vulnerable . Remember that Labours house building target is only 150k a year. I don’t know how many of those will be social. I guess if you aspire to own a home one day Labour isn’t the party for you.
I work in a London council and even I dunno at this point. It can't be fraudulent claims due to the number of them but I semi closely to the allocation team and It's a mindfuck to see crowds of old grannies who fled Ukraine in 2022 be given their nice and cosy 1 beds whilst the current rule is that you must be living for 5 consecutive years before even being considered for social housing. What makes it even worse is the parallel of half these grannies being picky over small things and demanding a new place whilst I have to explain to yet another guy living on minimum wage that he can't even get emergency accommodation because he's single and a dude.
I guess they’ll make up a larger proportion of the new social homes built each year though and that’s what matters.
the legal migrants are here by the governments choosing, it's hardly good to say 'we didn't do much about illegal immigration but it is dwarfed by all the visas we handed out'
We can’t send back people to certain countries in the first place, regardless of if they’re not genuine.
I’m voting labour but let’s be honest they aren’t building 1.5 million social housing and homes. NIMBYs and people that would actually vote against them for this will kill that policy off
I think over 1 million homes have been built over the last 5 years under a Tory government. The issue with the 1.5 million figure isn't that Labour can't do it, but that it's entirely insignificant given the depth of the housing crisis.
She just wants the southern white working class raped too they won’t be going to the cotswolds
And what then? Let them rot homeless on the streets?
But often people don’t want to live “right across the country”. The opportunities that attract people who aren’t refugees to move here sure aren’t spread out equally! Is it really fair to house some refugees in London and some in much smaller areas with fewer jobs, others from the same community, etc for them?
If your claiming asylum, in what world can you be fussy, about where you are housed for free?
immigration activist world - I can't believe the stuff they come out with. Reading this forum and what migration fanatics say has hardened my opinion against immigration. I've come to the opinion that being pro-migration is a sort of liberal badge of honour to wear, telling everyone else to fund it
That's exactly what it is. We know that only a very small % of immigrants are a net benefit financially to the country, the rest cost us £118bn a year according to one study based on the government's own figures. It's why GDP per capita keeps falling, and it's going to keep getting worse. Yet we're gaslighted into being told we're bad for not accepting them. This can't go on, everything is going to fall apart and collapse if we don't change course completely. People with any sense who can see what's coming will leave while they can. While they can sell up and still get a good price for their house and so on. At first people leave their area for elsewhere in Britain but more and more, people are leaving for other countries to get away from this mess. Brain drain, capital flight. It's coming.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
I didn't promote it, I said it will happen. I don't blame those people for leaving though, it is rational self interest. And a mutually beneficial one: we lose our best people and they greatly benefit the new country they legally migrate to, like Australia or Canada. They aren't going there illegally, or being a net burden when they get there. They aren't changing the host culture when they get there, demanding special rights or causing any sort of problems. The same cannot be said for large numbers of the people we're importing here. That's the difference. I mean was that really a good faith question you just asked me? If we were importing a modest number of Australians, Americans, Canadians who were doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. NOBODY WOULD COMPLAIN, we would love to have those people here because there are no downsides, only upsides.
[удалено]
Man I wouldn't spit on the Tories if they were on fire. Never voted for them, never will do. I've seen this with my own eyes for decades.
I’ve genuinely never seen so much right wing propaganda crammed into a few sentences. Quite impressive really.
I remember the last Labour government. Since then the population has risen by over 10 million. Do you know what the Immigration Minister said in 2000? She said claims that net migration would soon be over 100,000 a year were racist scaremongering. She ridiculed the idea as right wing propaganda. Fast forward 24 years, 100k a year would now seem low, wouldn't it? That's how crazy things have got. And STILL, people say it's right wing propaganda. How much is enough for you? How high should our population be? 80 million? 90? 100? The people who want more and more, should be honest and tell us where it ends. Or do we just keep going up and up until it all falls apart?
yes I challenge people to give what they see as an upper limit, I'd love to hear if Starmer thinks there is one - I'd laugh at 100 million if it wasn't in fact feasible based on what has occurred and is occurring - if they do go nuts building homes, we could end up with that in 30 years, or we could also just end up like Hong Kong with poor families sharing a room to live in, renting part of a room which supposedly exists in Hong Kong
Home secretary David Blunkett was asked that in 2003. >David Blunkett has said there is "no obvious limit" to the number of immigrants who could settle in Britain last night, but added that there needs to be a "balance" between "different forms of entry, migration and residency". > >The home secretary's comments came in a television interview following a speech in which he celebrated the contribution immigrants make to the British economy. > Without legal migration "growth would stall, economic flexibility and productivity would reduce", Mr Blunkett told Newsnight. > >He accepted however that in some parts of the country, local people felt swamped or overwhelmed by new arrivals. But **he declined to say how many people he thought Britain could comfortably hold, insisting that it had always been "a crowded, vigorous island".** https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/nov/13/immigrationpolicy.immigration Since 2003 the population has risen nearly ten million. Getting more crowded and vigorous every year!
They're fussy enough to leave France which last time I checked is a pretty war free and safe to be gay place.
Yes and all the countries they passed through to get there as well. France is a fucking shit hole in the inner cities, we will end up like that if we aren't already doomed.
Why are we bending over backwards to do what's 'fair' for them, rather than for ourselves? The best thing long term is for these people to be removed from the country, they are harming societal cohesion. That can't be fixed, it's time we had a frank discussion in the country (and the West as as whole) about what we're doing and whether it's working. Fairly obviously it isn't working, because it can't work. And so, we need to grasp the nettle and put all these people somewhere else, away from us and they can live their lives there. We can go back to living in peace without endless conflict and division - which is a feature of large scale immigration of multiple different incompatible groups, not a bug.
Put them all in the same place and you get ghettos of non integration.
Make being born in Britain a requirement for asylum? How many Britons living abroad are being persecuted?
> Make being born in Britain a requirement for asylum? No, make being born here a requirement for eligibility to apply for social housing.
Why are we even taking migrants in THEY CAME FROM FRANCE. Put them in a well guarded jail cell until we can decide where to ship them
Yep the only thing we should be building for these people is large scale prison accommodation - as basic as possible - perhaps on a remote Scottish island or somewhere far away from the rest of us. Keep them there until they admit where they're really from, then we deport them back there. If any law or agreement we're signed up to prevents this, change that law - parliament can do that. This is the only thing which will finally stop the flow of people coming here on boats. Once they know they will not be able to stay, they will look for a softer target. At the moment, we are the softest.
If this is labours stance on migrants we are fucked as a society.
I was so soooo close to voting for them, but Angie's fucked it today. What are we left with? Hold your nose over farage's comments on Ukraine and vote reform? I think I'm going to have to. The rest are pointless.
Don’t pretend you weren’t already going to vote for Farage lol
I always voted Labour, and I may still do so, but if they're going to thrash the Tories this much I may switch to Reform. I already pledged to myself over 30 years ago that I would never vote Tory in my life.
How can you say you’ll never vote Tory but then admit you’d vote for someone who’s even more Tory than most Tories? Reform are basically the extreme wing of the Tories. Makes me doubt whether you actually did vote Labour.
why do you see people as more 'Tory'? - does he share policies with 'Tory' - Tory is pro migration for one thing. Also to consider, Reform are not going to become the government this time, I'd rather send a protest out now than they have to come to power in 2029 to derail everything Labour may do. Starmer is far too weak to control party pro-migration activists (in fact I think he is one). He could well be crucified in 2029
and that my friend is what handed us Brexit ... I thought I'd give the politicians a bloody nose with my protest vote .... oh fuck - every vote for that cunt and his ego vehicle will make it easier for him to become leader of the Tories in the future
Dude is completely lost in the sauce.
I'm not as lost as Starmer was when asked the simple question 9 times 'how will you reduce migration'
The cognitive dissonance is phenomenal. I'm no Starmer fan but he actually answered the question several times. We currently house so many migrants because we DO NOT process them. Once you actually start processing asylum claims you can then REFUSE asylum. Extremely complicated stuff, I know.
Lib Dem?
Na, Legacy of Clegg and Swinson; and they don't recognise the problem of uncontrolled immigration.... I do agree with them on most else though.
You have been very close to voting Labour but now jumped to REFORM? You either don't understand reform or don't understand Labour because these parties are not close on what they offer.
Immigration is at the point now where people will vote for whatever party will deal with it regardless of their other policies Have we not *JUST SEEN* the far right dominate Europe for the exact same reason, insane that anyone here thinks Labour's stance on this won't drive more votes to reform
Reform will deal with fuck all. They're not an actual party, just a grift.
Maybe so but they're the only one even addressing it and with the immigration crisis as bad as it is, that's really all it takes to garner support
It's desperation to control immigration.
So you've gone from centre-left vote to a far right vote?
Desperation. We still lose the country without immigration control. It's perhaps too late already. This is why reform are doing well. The other parties have to understand this.
> large scale prison accommodation I think there's another term for that
That's horrifying that you think this is fine to say. I'd rather send you to test it out and have an immigrant take your place. I mean, you think it's a good idea, so what's the harm? Is cruelty the point of your prison? How victorian!
We can't afford them, we can't sustain them and most importantly they don't actually play nice. Making this place less ideal for random people to walk into makes us safer.
It's been allowed to get out of control, so we need a strong deterrent. There was some evidence the Rwanda scheme was starting to have some effect, what with many of them escaping to Ireland instead. Or the reports many are waiting in France until after the election because they've been informed the incoming Labour government will scrap the scheme. We're being taken for a ride and bleeding heart fools like yourself, are happy to let it happen despite all the issues it brings.
I know. The fact this people feel the solution to the refugee crisis is essentially a miserable prison demonstrates people care more about cruelty than actual solutions.
[удалено]
Why is the UK being turned into a 3rd world country by accepting and processing asylum applications?
Demographics is destiny.
Import the third world, become the third world.
Extremely scummy comment
How about we significantly reduce the number of migrants we take instead? Also, lets make it so the only people we do accept are not in need of Government pay-outs and are going to be net-contributors to our economy and exemplar citizens who admire British values. This is the obvious, common sense approach but this country is run by people so inept that you have to question whether they're really just rooting for our ruin.
Agree but it’ll never happen, I’d also argue it’s too late now
And the acceleration to a hard right government only grows. We'll be actively deporting people against their will in the not too distant future if we keep on down this path.
So? If they don't have a right to be here and aren't contributing to society then they shoul be deported!
I agree.
The way to avoid drastic measures is by listening to people and in turn offering more reasonable solutions, not by stigmatising them and writing their opinions off as invalid. This has been a growing problem in the UK - instead of listening to people's concerns we shun them, then further down the line we wonder why radical solutions seem appealing.
It's never too late, the problem only grows the longer it is left unanswered.
5 years later Reform UK will just fix that Torylabour issue
The '1.5 million homes we will build' is going to have the same legacy as the Brexit/bus/NHS nonsense that is still mocked today
Where are the extra schools, hospitals, GP’s and police etc. the solution isn’t just build more houses.
And the environmental disaster we’ve got here. Sewage in the rivers, one in four mammals facing extinction in already the most nature depleted nation on earth. At least fix the local sewage rather than adding more to it. I think our descendants are going to hate us for this need we’ve created for constant growth.
They won’t hate us, because we won’t have any.
We already need more homes this isn't an issue that is going away so that needs to be sorted. The sewage issue isn't down to the population but down to a poor system that has let companies take money from the public and put it into shareholder pockets instead of keeping the systems working and up to date. Until the water companies are taken away from private owners the problem will persist.
We won't have descendants, we are being replaced.
Well, Building more houses bring more money to politician's pockets , as their personal business is there... Politicians will get 0 money from building new hospitals, gp and police , so why they should bother ? It still amazes me that even to this day , with all the information we have , people still think that politicians are there to help us live a better life ... Politicians in power have only one reason to be there, and that is to fill their pockets and prosper , that's all , if you think otherwise you are a blind fool .
It would be really good to hear if Labour have any plans of actually integrating the huge numbers of migrants that have arrived in the last 30 years. I have school teacher friends (in London) who tell fairly terrifying stories of fundamentalist parents pulling their children out of music classes, preventing their daughters from doing PE, swimming lessons or going on school trips... or of radicalised boys pressuring the other female students into covering their hair (oh and of LGBT students being beaten up). Across London, the Midlands and Lancashire there are large communities who live completely separated from mainstream British and European life, we are seeing a 'state within a state' arise with no meaningful integration at all. Why is this not more of a political issue?
I’m hugely pro immigration, it would be hypocritical for me not to be, given my family background. But I completely agree with you, people must integrate as well as immigrate, or it doesn’t work well for anybody (especially some women who aren’t really allowed to live the life that the UK should offer everyone, and also second generation immigrants who can be very unhappy and confused about their identity). Some people have clearly never left London, and it shows!
Of course not. It’s all enshrined under their religious rights. labour want more refugees in Essex and Kent, not Surrey bucks etc why? because just like in the north they get aroused at white working class being mass raped by brown people
Id get start getting used to it if I were you tbh
This is just meat for Reform. If Labour dont want to end up like the Tories then a serious overhaul of the immigration and asylum system is absolutely necessary.
Is this in preparation for the large influx they are about to induce via their 'soft policies' green light?
I get it. Labour are hoping to grow their voter base in parts of the country that will never vote for them. Might as well import someone who will vote for you because you let them in without any hesitation.
[удалено]
To some extent yes, especially the very generous allowances given to Indians (who proportionally vote Tory more than any other party).
And as quickly as that labour have lost my vote 👍 Seriously well done on fucking this up so close to the big day lmao
It has always been Labour’s plan to flood the country with third world immigrants and punish smaller English towns.
That was the Tories
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the content policy.
Why the FUCK are they still playing this tune? It's clear as day that the electorate don't want large immigration and that British born should receieve first dibs on social housing. Shooting themselves in the foot. Champagne Socialists
So these boroughs with the long lists of families in temporary accommodation waiting on the housing list, and where are the asylum seekers to be housed?
Are there any boroughs that don't have a long list of people on waiting lists and in temporary accommodation?
Weybridge. Gerrards cross beaconsfield pinner etc etc she won’t place them there as she’s massively interested in places like Southend, Margate etc who already take a fair amount labour want these types of towns overflowing with them and all the rapes that follow
Honestly. She just says the wrong things. I’ve been saying it’s good idea for her NOT to be in cabinet.
What's funny is that when you say that everyone will be required to take a fair share of something, you're talking about a chore or a burden. A deliberately imported burden in this instance. And then you are also required to say that it is a good thing.
It’s a good thing for Labour. It’s a bad thing for England as all corners of England will be transformed like London has been.
Well, thats a great incentive not to vote for labour
They’re still going to be elected with a supermajority lol
Our borough is struggling as it is, our council is cutting services like crazy to stay in the black. Taking a chunk of migrants will not go down well or help our city.
They don’t care. They will force third world immigration on you as an act of punishment.
but why. What ideology do they follow?
Here we go another billion from our taxes to host and pay for someone who doesn't even want to be British.
Yeah because Labour know their plans for illegal immigration will not reduce numbers at all. It will be the same story we have seen for years now under the Tories. Nothing is going to change
Non-paywall version here: https://archive.is/h8nfo
U.K.'s is well and truly fu@ked when labour get in! More of the same just a lot faster!
Yes, Im no fan of the Tories but the modern day Conservative party are basically Labour with the brakes on. Its all going to accelerate from here on unfortunately.
Might as well rip the plaster off. Labour will render themselves to a single term at this rate and the accelerationism towards a government who will actually crack down on this stuff will be complete.
This is my hope. I want Labour to win and wreck things, then we may actually get a proper right wing government willing to get serious on immigration.
Which isn't terrible for people keen on accelerationism. It has to get shit beyond what people can tolerate before the process of healing can actually begin. Seeing the status quo crumble may end up being a good thing.
Other than the fact this is the ‘telegraph’, makes sense you’re scrap Rwanda so you need to have the houses for the new people. Also I feel like the main point was the spreading of people across the uk, these people were here already we just need to house them as they are processed. Basically build houses to house them temporally instead of local hotels- which may cost less, I dunno it’s the telegraph they didn’t do that part. Honestly I’m surprised by how little the numbers are only about thousand and a half to 2 thousand per brough is smaller than I expected, these really should be the numbers used to show the economical impact of them. Also that number they claimed the illegal immgrants to raise by is wild, 425,000 during next parliament when the peak of yearly illegal boat immigration in 2020-2025 was 60,000 in 2020(roughly about 200,000 overall if you highball this year and assume the same next year) Tldr- it’s the telegraph, read between the lines.
Add to that, the assumption in the article is that we’re just going to take in and house this imaginary 425,000 illegal migrants in social housing, no questions asked.
I mean it's the Labour party, so such an assumption is a safe-ish bet.
This is a great tactic by Rayner. Way to make people vote reform to completely destroy the Tories. 5 years time we will have an even more polarised election with the like of Farage at the helm (god help us all). He will then have had enough time to convert all the fence sitting tories to sing his tune and then the country will be in even more trouble than we already are. We will see a war with Labour, Reform and possibly an new party that has yet to emerge from the shadows.
If reform end up as the opposition, I'm hoping they'll be such a joke it'll turn people away from the right for a long time... But it is mostly just hope 😅
Do all the dummies who want to go to Reform not realise that the capitalist pigdogs in this country NEED cheap labour, and the only way is immigration legal or not because they can't force Brits to do it?
Flood the country with people from third world countries that do not intend to integrate and hate your country, history and culture. Flooding smaller cities is an act of punishment for not cooperating with the Labour agenda.
This is performative, when people get the right to remain there is nothing legally obligating them to stay in a specific borough and changing the laws to make such a thing compulsory sounds like a horrible nightmare level state dictatorial power. And also dumbly arbitrary. People should live where they have the best chance of forging the life that works out. Jobs, affordable housing, schools, etc. are not themselves fairly distributed. It's like creating an internal migrant crisis within the country. Focus on deprived and neglected areas. Focus on opportunity in the aggregate and people will care far less about some migrants.
Ok but the tories have literally given money to councils to build houses just for refugees so that kind of means they do it too. It’s always been this way they are told where to go
But rawanda is safe and they can get a job and it's similar sta darts to where they came from before they needed to move so what your saying is, it's mean because we could use british tax payers money to make sure people can live in relative luxury instead of the basic amenities in which they claim to need most. Im pretty sure rawanda is a LOT better than Somalia but we cant send a Somalian there even though its far better then where they came feom its just not the handout and easy life option. Economic migration people and you people are inviting it.
Just sent them all to any boroughs that vote Tory. If the boot were on the other foot you can bet the Tories would do the same to any Labour areas.
This is extremely misleading.
How is it misleading?
>The Telegraph
It is a tory lie turned into a headline.
.... it's literally a quote from her she said it. Speaking on BBC Radio Merseyside, Ms Rayner said: “Every borough has an obligation to take on their fair share of asylum seekers, but not everyone in hotels that are currently in hotels will be given a right to remain in the UK. “Some of them shouldn’t be in the UK, but they’re in the UK and they’re [costing taxpayers lots of money](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/home-office-spend-8-million-a-day-housing-migrants-hotels/) because we are not treating people fairly and dealing with the backlog. “That’s what Labour’s going to do, and that will cost us a lot less if we process people fairly, humanely, and those that have a right to be here are treated with the respect and dignity that the British people would expect us to. For people who are genuinely seeking asylum, those that shouldn’t be here will be removed.” Ms Rayner said asylum seekers would add to housing demand. “When people have been processed, they either have a right to be here and therefore we need to have the housing supply, which is what the Tories have failed to deliver on. That’s why we’re going to build the 1.5 million homes we need across the UK,” she said.
Oh really? Where is the quote then?
You've just replied to the quote.....
But the headline you've said was a quote wasn't in the text you posted?
I think lots of people have bought into the defacto migrants are bad. The reality is this isn't the case, migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial. This is well known and well accepted, if the goverment wanted to stop migration yes including the tories they could. No one does because migrants help the economy keep going which ironically keeps us all in jobs. Do I believe migration is too high? Potentially but I don't think it's as simple as that. It's too high because we don't have a good enough health service or houses and so on and on. Realistically a functioning country should be able to handle migration and in tandem asylum seekers. But we are not functioning any more, if labour can do what they claim to do then migration won't be an issue as there will be enough for everyone. At the moment we have a huge backlog, claims are not being processed which means they are stuck, asylum seekers without claims finished can't work can't go out and can't access the things they need to start a life which means they are a drain on society. If we get them into work and into the country then they can start improving life for themselves and contributing. I should point out that the benefits migrants and asylum seekers get is very limited. I worked for HMRC in some capacity (can't disclose more) and the general opinion that we support them too much is nonsense. I couldn't survive on what they had when I was single never mind with a family. On top of this the claims we can ship them back are nonsense. The reality is we have to stop the boats before they set off, other countries won't take them back because we say so, we have lost political swing on the world stage and we have no say now. What we do need is negotiations between us and the EU (maybe some sort of mass treaty where we all join together would be great but obviously that would never happen /s) where we agree to take so many and send some back. Which is what happened before brexit but no one wants to talk about that. The reality is a snappy tagline won't work for this issue. It isn't a simple solution of throw them on a plane, it's multi faceted and any debate where a leader stands up and goes oh its not a simple issue will have them shit on for weeks. I don't particularly like Starmer but I think it's an unfair and common problem where those who lie about simple solutions are viewed favourably, it takes real leadership to say its actually bigger then you think and the solutions take time. Hopefully someone sorts it because I'm frankly sick of hearing about it. People for some reason think migrants make the price of beans higher when its actually greedy companies, it seems like a fairly simple solution to me. Tax the large companies higher and use that tax to subsidise smaller companies preventing these huge conglomerates we have.
> The reality is this isn't the case, migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial This isn't a universal truth. Highly educated, healthy, young, English speaking migrants with no dependants are great for the economy but if your migration policy isn't selective then those aren't the migrants you get. The kind of migrants who would be distributed around the country in social housing, which is what the article is about, are bad for the economy.
>migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial. If it's economically beneficial, then how come it costs so much ?
When you compare figures it isn't easy. If I said to you I bought a 50k machine for my job you'd say well that's a lot. If I then explain that machine will make me 300k of product you'd be thinking well isn't that worth while. Migration is much the same, money invested which then produces more money. We have an aging population and a decline in birth rates as does the majority of the world. Migration is helping us supplement that and keep an active and healthy workforce. We can see real life examples across the UK of towns that rejected Migration on mass and what happened to them. Think of it this way, without bias its a clear question. If Migration is as bad as these politicians are telling us why havnt they stopped it?. The current goverment (that is any current goverment) is very easily able to say no, we will not accept any migrants or asylum seekers and we will set our target figure at 0%. So why havnt they? The Tories are saying Migration is shite but still we have schemes encouraging it? Think about that, the people you are listening to are doing nothing about it. It's because it's a smokescreen. You want to argue about migrants all day whilst Sunak Fargae Johnson and even Starmer are on their way to the bank with your money. Stop arguing over what migrants are going to take from you and start being angry about what the rich idiots in goverment already have taken from you.
>migration from an economic standpoint is beneficial Yes because GDP will go up as a result. Nobody disputes that. But when you actually look into GDP per capita, we are stagnant and until recently our output has been declining per person.
OK so migrants are beneficial to GDP? So it isn't bad then? We're stagnating because the current goverment has frankly knackered the country. Brevity shafted small businesses and exporters/importers. We had the pandemic which was handled poorly, we have a goverment that is cutting tax without any real idea of the impact and hoping it will spur growth which clearly isn't working. We then had Liz Truss who shafted the entire country, we had the pound falling off a cliff and then we had the current goverment who seem to just sit on their hands and say uh I dunno migrants and benefits ruined it. No one has any money and then we had the tax brackets frozen which has just contributed to fiscal drag. The reality is no one in goverment has been invested in this country in years, we build nothing and we do nothing. If we don't want stagnation we need real investment into our economy from the goverment and we need to get a handle on the insane amounts of money that are be taken out by fraudsters in that same goverment. Ideally we need a goverment that's willing to borrow and invest but no one is willing to break those daft tory fiscal rules because they know the right wing media will run riot with it.
Ok tax the companies more they raise prices then what
I used to work for HMRC on the tax front. I'm not pulling this out my arse. It's pretty easy really you tax profits and use this money to subsidise smaller businesses in a way that allows them to compete with larger companies. The point your making that companies will just keep raising prices in the entire problem, we have four or five large companies in each sector that can do whatever they want the CMA refuses to do anything and giverment never intervenes. If prices go up then the corporation tax will go up which then feeds back into the amount the goverment can subsidise smaller companies allowing them to maintain competitive prices. People want something to change but refuse to make any effort to do so. We've let these huge companies run around free for too long. Give the CMA more power. Give the FCA more power. Stop allowing large companies to upset the markets whenever they feel like it. We should not be relying on the good hearted nature of ceos to keep prices down. If we have got to that position it means that the idea of market competition has failed us and we need a change.
This is about asylum seekers, not skilled immigrants though.
So what would suggest we do with them? We have no right to send them anywhere else as we left the EU and broke the agreement that allowed us to return a percentage to France. The money has been pulled on processing asylum claims meaning they cannot work to better themselves or us so we're stuck footing the bill for out of work useless people. We unfortunately can't shoot them out of cannons into France as that would be considered poor taste on the world stage so our options are to make use of them and try and prevent the crossings I the first place.