When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[bspahh]

Getting back onto the main thread topic of, "When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson", I think this is the fundamental reason why the Tories, despite all their problems (and to be fair they have had a lot of problems over the past year, many of them self-inflicted) will keep confounding the left when it comes to winning - or at least doing a lot better than expected - at elections: Because too many people on the left have become so convinced of their own righteousness that they've forgotten about things like respecting and trying to understand the right-wing point of view. And as a result they end up just doing more and more to alienate moderate/centre-ground voters - who very often actually share the right-wing point of view on a good number of issues. (Not trying to personally accuse the people I'm replying to of that, but the three posts I've quoted do seem to perfectly illustrate that attitude).

I have been alienated from the leadership of the Conservative party by their lies and culture war. The fix will be through truth and reconciliation.

 

[DarloRich]

That's three posts in a row that, instead of trying to debate the merits of the Government's immigration proposals in good faith,

There are no merits to debate. It is a stupid and quite possibly pointlessly expensive and unworkable policy.

In any event the timing is extremely useful. You may be naive enough to believe in that coincidence. I am not.

I maintain: not dreamt up overnight. Relased now to deflect and distract and fire up the kippers that form the Tory base ahead of forthcoming elections.

I am sure you will think otherwise. That is your business.

 

[duncanp]

Because too many people on the left have become so convinced of their own righteousness that they've forgotten about things like respecting and trying to understand the right-wing point of view. And as a result they end up just doing more and more to alienate moderate/centre-ground voters - who very often actually share the right-wing point of view on a good number of issues.

The ignoring of moderate and centre ground voters is what lead to Donald Trump being elected in 2016, especially after Hillary Clinton described some of Donald Trump's supporters as a "..basket of deplorables.."

Listen to the filmmaker Michael Moore, who whilst on the left of American politics, was the first to predict that Donald Trump would win, due to the alienation of voters in the rust belt states of the MidWest. Michael Moore described the election of Donald Trump as "..the biggest **** you in a generation..", by people who felt ignored by the liberal elite in Washington DC and California.

You can see echos of this in the UK, with Emily Thornberry and her tweet about the man with a white van and England flags hanging from the window. Some people, including those on this forum, also have a sneering condescension towards those who go to Wetherspoons pubs, motivated in part by the political views of Tim Martin.

It will be interesting to see what happens in France on April 24th in the second round of the presidential election. I personally hope Marine Le Pen wins, as it will shake up the French political establishment, which is dominated by the Parisian elite who know little and care even less about what happens in the rest of France.

If you want to stop people voting for Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, or other right wing politicians, you have to give them something to vote for.

It is not enough to present the likes of Trump/Johnson/Le Pen as right wing bogeymen, and think that is going to be enough to make people vote for you at the next election.

 

[DarloRich]

It will be interesting to see what happens in France on April 24th in the second round of the presidential election. I personally hope Marine Le Pen wins, as it will shake up the French political establishment, which is dominated by the Parisian elite who know little and care even less about what happens in the rest of France.

You want a fascist to win? That seems a little erm fruity

You can see echos of this in the UK, with Emily Thornberry and her tweet about the man with a white van and England flags hanging from the window. Some people, including those on this forum, also have a sneering condescension towards those who go to Wetherspoons pubs, motivated in part by the political views of Tim Martin.

We were once a country where ignorance and stupidity were something to be ashamed off. Now we celebrate and encourage it.

Btw it is not condescenion I feel but pity. Pity that you think Johnson and his ilk are on your side. They arent.

"..basket of deplorables

They are! They tried a coup ffs.

 

[brad465]

It will be interesting to see what happens in France on April 24th in the second round of the presidential election. I personally hope Marine Le Pen wins, as it will shake up the French political establishment, which is dominated by the Parisian elite who know little and care even less about what happens in the rest of France.

In a quieter era, maybe. But not while Putin is doing his worst, as Le Pen is literally in debt to a Russian Bank and recently voiced opposition to Russian Oil and Gas sanction proposals. The political establishment won't be shaken up by people like Johnson and Le Pen, it will have to be shaken up from the bottom up, which would typically mean a revolution, something France knows a thing or two about.

 

[jfollows]

If you want to stop people voting for Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, or other right wing politicians, you have to give them something to vote for.

It is not enough to present the likes of Trump/Johnson/Le Pen as right wing bogeymen, and think that is going to be enough to make people vote for you at the next election.

I think you're right.
I voted against Boris recently, but I think I'm in the minority, I couldn't vote for a party led by someone I consider to be a liar, a coward, a fantasist, and by someone who is prepared to break the law to get his own way.
That was my opinion in 2019 but I'm happy with my vote for Labour then even though I wasn't voting for Corbyn at all.
If there were an election tomorrow, the opinion pollster's question, I'd be much happier voting for Labour as the party it has now evolved into. Some of its supporters aren't happy, but I think it's much more "electable" because it now stands for more things than it did. Or at least more things with which I agree.

 

[duncanp]

You want a fascist to win? That seems a little erm fruity

We were once a country where ignorance and stupidity were something to be ashamed off. Now we celebrate and encourage it.

Btw it is not condescenion I feel but pity. Pity that you think Johnson and his ilk are on your side. They arent.


They are! They tried a coup ffs.

I don't think that Marine Le Pen is a fascist, unless you consider anyone whose political views are right of centre to be a "fascist".

Whilst some of Donald Trump's supporters are undoubtedly right wing nut jobs, it is the assumption by those on the left that everyone who supported him, or voted for him, is a "deplorable" that riles people.

Have a look at Michael Moore in Trumpland and Fahrenheit 11/9, both films by Michael Moore. Michael Moore was very much opposed to Donald Trump, but he was equally scathing about Hillary Clinton, and he understood why people voted for Donald Trump.

Michael Moore's preferred candidate for president in 2016 was Bernie Sanders, and he (Michael Moore) had a lot to say about how the selection process for the Democratic nominee was rigged (by the liberal elite) in favour of Hillary Clinton, despite Bernie Sanders winning the popular vote in many states.

He quoted one state (I think it was Michigan) where Bernie Sanders won the primary election in all but 4 counties, and yet the electors for that state voted for Mrs Clinton at the Democratic Convention. It is interesting to note that, following this, Michigan voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

It is when voters concerns are ignored by a (perceived) far away liberal elite that people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban etc. are elected.

If the concerns that some UK voters had regarding the European Union had been addressed when David Cameron was renegotiating our terms of membership after the 2015 election, we could still be members of the EU even now.

I personally voted to remain in 2016, but if there was another referendum now I would vote to leave.

 

[D6130]

I personally voted to remain in 2016, but if there was another referendum now I would vote to leave.

Hardly likely to happen now, as we have already left!

 

[DarloRich]

personally voted to remain in 2016, but if there was another referendum now I would vote to leave.

Right. Of course you would.

Whilst some of Donald Trump's supporters are undoubtedly right wing nut jobs, it is the assumption by those on the left that everyone who supported him, or voted for him, is a "deplorable" that riles people.

The truth hurts.

I don't think that Marine Le Pen is a fascist, unless you consider anyone whose political views are right of centre to be a "fascist

Well you dont know what you are talking about. Perhaps you would prefer neo fascist but she is far right.

 

[duncanp]

Right. Of course you would.

The truth hurts.

Well you dont know what you are talking about. Perhaps you would prefer neo fascist but she is far right.

Put it this way, if there was a referendum on whether the UK should rejoin the EU, I would vote to stay out. I do not want the UK to become part of a United States of Europe, nor do I want the UK to adopt the Euro. I also have some concerns regarding the financial implications of COVID for the future of the EU, and in particular the concept of debt mutualisation, where all EU member states are responsible for each others debts.

I am not so naive as to deny that some of Donald Trump's supporters were far right extremists. What I take issue with is the assumption (by the liberal elite in Washington DC) that all of his supporters were "deplorables", to quote Mrs Clinton. Michael Moore understood this, and he cringed when Mrs Clinton made that speech, as he knew (correctly as it turned out) that it would simply make more people vote for Donald Trump.

Whether you consider Marine Le Pen to be a "fascist", "neo fascist" or "far right" depends on your definition of those terms.

I do know what I am talking about when it comes to French politics, having visited the country frequently over the past 25 years. The majority of the country hate the Parisian elite, in much the same way as large parts of the UK resent the way London and its needs dominate the UK political and economic landscape.

If Mr Macron wants to win on April 24th, he needs to address the concerns of voters outside Paris, and not continue to paint Ms Le Pen as some kind of ogre.

 

[edwin_m]

The ignoring of moderate and centre ground voters is what lead to Donald Trump being elected in 2016, especially after Hillary Clinton described some of Donald Trump's supporters as a "..basket of deplorables.."

Listen to the filmmaker Michael Moore, who whilst on the left of American politics, was the first to predict that Donald Trump would win, due to the alienation of voters in the rust belt states of the MidWest. Michael Moore described the election of Donald Trump as "..the biggest **** you in a generation..", by people who felt ignored by the liberal elite in Washington DC and California.

You can see echos of this in the UK, with Emily Thornberry and her tweet about the man with a white van and England flags hanging from the window. Some people, including those on this forum, also have a sneering condescension towards those who go to Wetherspoons pubs, motivated in part by the political views of Tim Martin.

It will be interesting to see what happens in France on April 24th in the second round of the presidential election. I personally hope Marine Le Pen wins, as it will shake up the French political establishment, which is dominated by the Parisian elite who know little and care even less about what happens in the rest of France.

If you want to stop people voting for Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, or other right wing politicians, you have to give them something to vote for.

It is not enough to present the likes of Trump/Johnson/Le Pen as right wing bogeymen, and think that is going to be enough to make people vote for you at the next election.

This has a lot to do with the FPTP electoral system that we moreorless share with the USA and few other countries. When there is a proportional system, parties have to work together to form a coalition, meaning that a majority of the voters get at least some of the policies of the party they voted for. FPTP encourages parties to play to their bases, and gain sole power based on attracting well under 50%. If politicians "play by the rules" and when elected govern for the whole country including those who didn't support them, then this may be sort of workable. But a Trump or a Johnson is able to exploit it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does anyone know the terms of the deal with Rwanda? Are they paying us or offering anything in return for accepting single male migrants who initially wanted to come to Britain?

 

[edwin_m]

Our Government was obviously desperate to do something about this problem, in a way that would satisfy the backbenchers and the activists. So I would expect Rwanda to have detected that and demanded a fee per migrant. It wouldn't surprise me either if that was being paid out of the overseas aid budget.

 

[brad465]

Does anyone know the terms of the deal with Rwanda? Are they paying us or offering anything in return for accepting single male migrants who initially wanted to come to Britain?

I think we're paying them money, given the £120m pilot scheme announcement, and the thing we get in return is offloading having to further process and reside refugees/migrants travelling in this manner. I've not seen any other things we get as a result. The UN have spoken out said said the terms breach international law, which isn't a surprise.

In a quieter era, maybe. But not while Putin is doing his worst, as Le Pen is literally in debt to a Russian Bank and recently voiced opposition to Russian Oil and Gas sanction proposals. The political establishment won't be shaken up by people like Johnson and Le Pen, it will have to be shaken up from the bottom up, which would typically mean a revolution, something France knows a thing or two about.

Whether you consider Marine Le Pen to be a "fascist", "neo fascist" or "far right" depends on your definition of those terms.

I do know what I am talking about when it comes to French politics, having visited the country frequently over the past 25 years. The majority of the country hate the Parisian elite, in much the same way as large parts of the UK resent the way London and its needs dominate the UK political and economic landscape.

If Mr Macron wants to win on April 24th, he needs to address the concerns of voters outside Paris, and not continue to paint Ms Le Pen as some kind of ogre.

I notice you haven't responded to my initial concern about Le Pen (quoted above) about concerns with her at this time of tension with Russia, which I hope is more moderate than other responses you've had. I would add she has policies that are both far left and far right, which kind of demonstrates the horseshoe theory. Incidentally the same could be said for Johnson, he has notable left wing policies like higher taxation, nationalising some of our failing rail companies, and other big spending ambitions, even if they don't go where they are most needed.

 

[AlterEgo]

I read on Twitter from a journo that a ministerial direction was given to make this happen immediately. That is, it was not found to be a cost effective policy and the minister forced it through by prerogative to have the announcement happen as soon as possible.

 

[yorksrob]

I read on Twitter from a journo that a ministerial direction was given to make this happen immediately. That is, it was not found to be a cost effective policy and the minister forced it through by prerogative to have the announcement happen as soon as possible.

Hmm. It does seem a bit off this. I can imagine even a lot of Tories would feel uneasy at this policy.

For a government that's usually keen to go through consultations for everything, this seems like a risky one to nail is colours to.

 

[The Ham]

Interestingly the Telegraph had reported that the Tories are likely to lose a load of local wards in the local elections and that Labour could end up in power at the next general election:

Exclusive: Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024

Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections

www.telegraph.co.uk

Exclusive: Tories set to lose 800 council seats – and Sir Keir Starmer on course to be PM in 2024​

Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now forecast five per cent swing from Tories to Labour at local elections.


The Conservatives are on course to lose more than 800 council seats in next month's local elections in results that, if repeated at the next general election, would see Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, become prime minister.
Pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now are forecasting a five per cent swing from the Tories to Labour at the local elections in England and Wales on May 5.
If replicated at a general election, the figures suggest Labour would emerge as the largest party in Parliament, 15 MPs short of an overall majority and probably reliant on a power-sharing deal with the SNP to form a government.
The polling firms asked about the voting intentions of more than 12,000 people in 201 district and unitary councils between April 4 and April 8. The sample was then weighted by gender, age, social class and past voting pattern.
Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now found the Tories are likely to lose 810 seats – with their wards falling from 1,965 to 1,155 – while Labour will gain 835, giving the party 3,722 predicted wards.
Advertisement

Prized Tory councils including Wandsworth – a totemic authority for the party as an early adopter of Thatcherite policies of council house sales and privatisation of street cleaning and refuse collection – are forecast to be taken by Labour.

As well as the south-west London council, the Tories are expected to lose Barnet, Harlow, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Southampton and Thurrock.
Forecast Labour gains include Blaenau Gwent, Bolton, Bridgend and Burnley as well as Crawley, Flintshire, Milton Keynes, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Plymouth. The Liberal Democrats are forecast to lose 13 council seats, leaving the party with 447 wards, and Plaid Cymru to gain 64, taking it to 190.
Martin Baxter, the Electoral Calculus founder, said: "If the actual results are similar to our predictions, then Boris Johnson will be spared new backbench pressure to unseat him.
"Although the Conservatives will lose some ground in these local elections, it doesn't look like a catastrophic defeat and that is a good result for them after their poor poll ratings post-'partygate'."
Advertisement

However, the polling was carried out before Scotland Yard's decision to fine Mr Johnson, his wife Carrie and Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, for attending an illegal party during one of the Covid lockdowns.

Mr Baxter said Labour still faced the challenge of generating any real "enthusiasm" among voters compared with the surge away from the Tories that benefited Tony Blair's Labour in the mid-1990s.
He told the Chopper's Politics Podcast, which you can listen to on the audio player at the top of this article: "If you can cast your mind back to Tony Blair, he generated a lot of enthusiasm at the time. People were encouraged to vote for him.
"Keir Starmer has not yet shown that. There's not yet been electoral victories without a proven enthusiasm by the British public to get Labour in and the Conservatives out."
Mr Baxter said the forecast local election results, if replicated at the general election expected to take place in May 2024, would see Labour emerge as the largest party.

He described this as "a central forecast" and "quite a likely outcome", adding: "We'd probably be looking at a Labour minority government that might be supported by the Lib Dems if they're lucky. But it would probably be more likely to lead to SNP support. And obviously, the price of that SNP support would probably be a second independence referendum."
Advertisement

However, Mr Baxter warned that a lot could change, saying: "A Labour minority government is currently where we are – but remember, we are mid-term. Things may well change in the next two years.
"Politics has been changing quite quickly in the last two years, so we will have to wait and see. But yes, it is literally true that anything could happen in the next general election."

Now there may be an element of "if you don't vote Tory this is what you'll get", however if that is the message it's quite a subtle one.

Yes it's saying that it's not going to be a white wash, with the Tories still doing OK and that a Labour win at the general election would likely require support from SNP and/or Lib Dems.

Another factor which may harm the Tory Party is that there have a climate change sceptical group, including one MP who tweeted a non pier reviewed article on how climate change isn't happening:

Tory MP Steve Baker shares paper denying climate crisis | Conservatives | The Guardian

amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org

A Conservative MP has shared a paper that says the climate emergency is not happening.
Steve Baker, the MP for Wycombe and a leading member of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, shared the report, produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), on his Twitter feed.
He and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, comprising about 20 Tory MPs, have previously said they do not deny the science around climate change but merely disagree with the costs involved in some of the methods proposed to reach net zero.



When asked if he agreed with the report, Baker said: “I am clear that questions of climate science should be handled scientifically. The last thing we need is politicians and activists twisting the science to their particular ends.”
Baker is a trustee of the GWPF, and the group of Tories have used its research to make their arguments previously.
Joe Tetlow, a senior political adviser for the Green Alliance, a charity and thinktank, said: “The mask has slipped. Promoting climate denial from GWPF is not scrutiny of policies but denying the basis for action. Dangerous and wrong.

The non-peer-reviewed paper is authored by a retired scientist, Ole Humlum, a former professor at the University of Oslo.
He has repeatedly claimed that rather than human impact, it is the sun and moon’s influence on Earth that explains most of the historical and current climate change. In 2013 he predicted that the climate would most likely become colder in the next 10 to 15 years.

Whilst there's still some support from the general population for this, it's widely held within the UK population that climate change is likely to be man made, and even if it turns out not to be it's at least better to assume that it is and so something about it than assume that it's not and find out too late that it was.

(Of course it's not a universal held view, and there's likely to be enough who hold the view that there'll be some on here, however it tends to be very much against the grain of the wider population).

 

[yorksrob]

If only we could get a labour government that wasn't an open door to the separatists.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think we're paying them money, given the £120m pilot scheme announcement, and the thing we get in return is offloading having to further process and reside refugees/migrants travelling in this manner. I've not seen any other things we get as a result.

I would say that is fundamental misunderstanding the purpose of the policy. The primary purpose isn't about offloading anything - it's about solving the problem of thousands of migrants (at least some of whom are economic migrants rather than genuine refugees) making death-defying trips across the channel in unsuitable, overcroaded dinghies and suchlike, many of them dying en route - by making it less attractive for them to make the journey because - who's going spend months living in squalor in Calais and then risk their lives in that way in order to get asylum in Rwanda?

The sending people to Rwanda isn't an end in it's own right - it's a means to the end of stopping the cruel trade in people trafficking. The policy will be considered a success if, as a result of its introduction people no longer choose to do that in such large numbers. It therefore, despite the exaggerated absurd accusations of it being cruel and evil etc. - actually has some humanitarian intentions

 

[brad465]

I would say that is fundamental misunderstanding the purpose of the policy. The primary purpose isn't about offloading anything - it's about solving the problem of thousands of migrants (at least some of whom are economic migrants rather than genuine refugees) making death-defying trips across the channel in unsuitable, overcroaded dinghies and suchlike, many of them dying en route - by making it less attractive for them to make the journey because - who's going spend months living in squalor in Calais and then risk their lives in that way in order to get asylum in Rwanda?

The sending people to Rwanda isn't an end in it's own right - it's a means to the end of stopping the cruel trade in people trafficking. The policy will be considered a success if, as a result of its introduction people no longer choose to do that in such large numbers. It therefore, despite the exaggerated absurd accusations of it being cruel and evil etc. - actually has some humanitarian intentions

Would the policy be able to cope with the numbers though? Robert Shrimsley of the FT pointed out Australia spent far more on their policy and processed only around 250 migrants for almost £500m, whereas there are many days where 250 is under the daily number trying to cross the channel. If the policy cannot cope, it won't deter travel, as a high number would not be sent to Rwanda.

While we would have to await for some pilot scheme results to know for sure, I wouldn't be surprised also if this doesn't stop a large number travelling, as if their circumstances are already bad enough that they're prepared to risk their lives crossing the channel (remembering these people will be fleeing war-torn areas), then being flown onto Rwanda after may feel like a "I've got nothing to lose."

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would the policy be able to cope with the numbers though? Robert Shrimsley of the FT pointed out Australia spent far more on their policy and processed only around 250 migrants for almost £500m, whereas there are many days where 250 is under the daily number trying to cross the channel. If the policy cannot cope, it won't deter travel, as a high number would not be sent to Rwanda.

While we would have to await for some pilot scheme results to know for sure, I wouldn't be surprised also if this doesn't stop a large number travelling, as if their circumstances are already bad enough that they're prepared to risk their lives crossing the channel (remembering these people will be fleeing war-torn areas), then being flown onto Rwanda after may feel like a "I've got nothing to lose."

Those are good points. Personally I'm a bit sceptical of whether it is likely to work, but I feel inclined to be supportive because - bluntly - as far as I'm aware, no-one else has suggested any other practical solution that stands much chance of working, and at least this attempt recognises that you're never likely to solve the problem if you can't substantially lower the incentive to come to the UK illegally.

I think you're right that the scheme isn't going to be much of a deterrent unless it covers almost all people who make the crossing. The pilot scheme is therefore going to be useless for measuring deterrent effect, but may give information about the feasibility of sending people to other countries at all. Rwanda is a small country so I'm not sure how keen they'd be on expanding it much beyond a pilot. On the other hand, *if* the scheme did probe to be a good deterrent, then by definition, the numbers would quickly drop so you wouldn't have to deal with that many people (other than temporarily at the start).

 

[The Ham]

Whilst the number of people attempting to arrive in the UK visa vista had increased significantly the total number of asylum applications (and the vast majority coming by boats are seeking asylum) is broadly stable varying between about 30,000 and 45,000 for the last decade.

As such the way to stop people coming here by boats is to provide a way for them to claim asylum in another location.

Given that between 1986 to 2022 net migration per 1,000 people had varied between 0 and 7.7 people (i.e. never more than 1%) and currently sits at 2.52 (0.25%).

However we need this to be a little positive as in 2016 18% of the population where over 65, this compares to 15.8% of the population in 1991. That may not sound like a big shift, however you have to bear in mind that the population has grown in that time, meaning that the total number i has grown a lot from 9.1 to 11.8 (+29.7%).

Now the predictions are that those over 65 will continue to grow as a percentage of the overall population.

Now I don't know about you, but most people want to retire soon after they turn 65 (in comparison to the 65-85+ age band, not meaning before their 66th birthday) and as such quite a lot of these will be economically inactive.

As such whilst it may not be popular amongst some groups were do need to allowing some to come here so that we have a future population of working age to deal with us in our old age.

Now whilst there's some big numbers thown about with regards to housing asylum seekers, in part this is down to the fact that there's been no long term policy to create suitable housing for those the government needs to support.

If that was the case, then rather than having to host them in hotels (potentially costing £50/night, so over a year costing £15,000 to £19,000) they could have been housed in social housing costing (say) £400,000 to buy today, and then being nearly free in 25 years time (cost is that of a large 3 bed house on the open market about an hour from London, whilst in London that would be much higher in most other cities around the country it would be cheaper). However most social housing stock would have been built up over the last 25 years and at a much lower cost (for instance or home has doubled in value in the last 12 years) and so would be "repaying" that investment faster.

However within that 3 bedroom house you could fit a family of 6, which isn't something which you can do in a single hotel room.

Of course if there had been a good policy on providing housing for those the government needed to support, those who currently live in the UK would also have easier access to social housing when they needed it. Meaning that there would be less anger from those feeling that their needs are being overlooked in favour of those who have only just got here.

Taking our house as an example, if the government brought it, rather than us, and a family on benefits moved in but then their circumstances improved so that they could pay the market rent they would only need to live in it for about 15 years to repay the investment (even allowing for agent fees).

The problem is that too often things are seen as a subsidy rather than a future investment.

For instance when a child has an education, the idea is that child then uses that education so that they can get a job; in doing so repaying the investment made in them.

Now asylum seekers should have a much quicker pay back period on the investment made to them compared to a child, not least as the length of time required to invest in them is likely to be much shorter.

Now where it really gets good is when we have highly qualified asylum seekers, for example doctors, who we can (say, with a year or two of training to ensure that they meet certain standards) being into employment much faster and for a much smaller investment than training a doctor through university.

As such, what we should be doing is going out and looking for those high quality, highly trained people who would bring near immediate benefits from the investment in approving their asylum case.

The problem is that the prevailing view is that anyone extra in the UK is a bad thing for the country and so we should be stopping everyone from coming here.

Taking my argument to its (extreme) conclusion we should go out to the world looking for high quality asylum seekers and aid then in getting here, in doing so massively improving the country. As we've then left the lower quality asylum seekers, we could highlight just how great it country is by having all these asylum seekers but leaving the rest of the world with those who need much more support. Taking it one step further, as the priory would be to see high returns from our investments the policy of relocating people to Rwanda would be focused on those UK people who were have invested a lot in and are seeing little return from. As it would be cheaper to house them in Rwanda than in the UK.

That would act as an incentive to get off of benefits and this save the country a lot of money.

(For clarification I don't believe that should be the case and is taking the argument to an extreme example, but almost the polar opposite to where we currently are. However our thinking should be closer to this way of thinking than it currently is).

 

[Howardh]

If only we could get a labour government that wasn't an open door to the separatists.

Conundrum. Labour would want the support of the SNP, which would probably mean another referendum, and if Scotland became independent Labour would lose it's support and a number of winnable seats in Scotland when indy is granted. It's a lose-lose.

Solution - the SNP wish Scotland to be back in the EU; so Labour should offer the UK a rejoin referendum, and if that's still refused then offer Scotland an indy referendum. Conundrum - that would put off Labour voting Brexiters....

However there's still the chance that the Tory vote collapses before 2024 when the country realises it can't pay the power bills.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whilst the number of people attempting to arrive in the UK visa vista had increased significantly the total number of asylum applications (and the vast majority coming by boats are seeking asylum) is broadly stable varying between about 30,000 and 45,000 for the last decade.

As such the way to stop people coming here by boats is to provide a way for them to claim asylum in another location.

The numbers of people claiming asylum has been roughly stable because the huge difficulty and dangers involved in getting to the point where you can claim asylum have also remained roughly stable. Do you really think the numbers claiming would still stay stable if you suddenly made it vastly easier for people to claim asylum by providing facilities in other locations?

Now the predictions are that those over 65 will continue to grow as a percentage of the overall population.

Now I don't know about you, but most people want to retire soon after they turn 65 (in comparison to the 65-85+ age band, not meaning before their 66th birthday) and as such quite a lot of these will be economically inactive.

As such whilst it may not be popular amongst some groups were do need to allowing some to come here so that we have a future population of working age to deal with us in our old age.

But what happens when the migrants you've brought in to provide for today's retired people reach 65 and themselves wish to retire? If your answer is, you import another round of migrants to care for them, then what you are proposing would amount to an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

Now where it really gets good is when we have highly qualified asylum seekers, for example doctors, who we can (say, with a year or two of training to ensure that they meet certain standards) being into employment much faster and for a much smaller investment than training a doctor through university.

As such, what we should be doing is going out and looking for those high quality, highly trained people who would bring near immediate benefits from the investment in approving their asylum case.

That would amount to, depopulating poorer countries of the skilled people who could make life in those countries better, in order to benefit ourselves. Wouldn't it be ethically better to put more resources into training people already in the UK to do jobs where there are shortages?

The problem is that the prevailing view is that anyone extra in the UK is a bad thing for the country and so we should be stopping everyone from coming here.

I think that's a misrepresentation. It's not that anyone extra is bad (probably a small minority of extremists believe that but certainly not most people on the mainstream right). It's more about recognising that, while allowing people who want to migrate to do so is in principle great, there are limits on the rate at which any country can sustainably absorb migrants. There's also a concern that migration should be done legally through the visa system rather than by people (who in many cases would not be eligible for asylum) being smuggled into the country.

 

[yorksrob]

Conundrum. Labour would want the support of the SNP, which would probably mean another referendum, and if Scotland became independent Labour would lose it's support and a number of winnable seats in Scotland when indy is granted. It's a lose-lose.

Solution - the SNP wish Scotland to be back in the EU; so Labour should offer the UK a rejoin referendum, and if that's still refused then offer Scotland an indy referendum. Conundrum - that would put off Labour voting Brexiters....

However there's still the chance that the Tory vote collapses before 2024 when the country realises it can't pay the power bills.

There's a lot of potential for upheaval in all those scenarios.

 

[Howardh]

There's a lot of potential for upheaval in all those scenarios.

I'm hoping by 2024 all those Brexit-voting Labour voters will actually see through and realise Brexit's doing them no good and return to normal. Although the more likely senario is the Tories see their lead slipping away and call a snap election to stop the haemorrage, maybe this autumn if the Ukraine situation eases and before the next round of price-hikes. That tactically would make sense?

Edit - I don't think Brexit will be reversed (not in my lifetime anyway) but I reckon we could end up with a Norway-style agreement (under Labour) (EEA).

 

[yorksrob]

I'm hoping by 2024 all those Brexit-voting Labour voters will actually see through and realise Brexit's doing them no good and return to normal. Although the more likely senario is the Tories see their lead slipping away and call a snap election to stop the haemorrage, maybe this autumn if the Ukraine situation eases and before the next round of price-hikes. That tactically would make sense?

Edit - I don't think Brexit will be reversed (not in my lifetime anyway) but I reckon we could end up with a Norway-style agreement (under Labour) (EEA).

I certainly think that there's more scope to build on the alliance with Europe, but it would need a fresh set of people leading.

 

[The Ham]

The numbers of people claiming asylum has been roughly stable because the huge difficulty and dangers involved in getting to the point where you can claim asylum have also remained roughly stable. Do you really think the numbers claiming would still stay stable if you suddenly made it vastly easier for people to claim asylum by providing facilities in other locations?

Around 2002 there was a large spike, however either side of that the numbers are fairly stable (a few higher, a few lower but mostly 25,000 to 40,000) from 1990 through to 2020, as such (unless we eased things off a lot around the turn if Millennium) how easy it is to apply hasn't appeared to make a significant difference to overall numbers.

But what happens when the migrants you've brought in to provide for today's retired people reach 65 and themselves wish to retire? If your answer is, you import another round of migrants to care for them, then what you are proposing would amount to an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

Not really, which is why I said small amounts. Clearly if we attract 1 for every 1 reaching 65 that's going to be a problem. However, so is not attracting anyone given that in current trends that by 2066 the prediction is that 25% of the population will be over 65.

Assuming 10% are under 18 that's about 1/3 of the population inactive economical. That's hardly likely to be sustainable either.

Yes people being attracted now will need support in the future, however with a failing birth rate there isn't the children from the native population to replace them.

That would amount to, depopulating poorer countries of the skilled people who could make life in those countries better, in order to benefit ourselves. Wouldn't it be ethically better to put more resources into training people already in the UK to do jobs where there are shortages?

Note I'm talking about Asylum seekers, not general immigration. As such those people are leaving anyway and are most likely to those who can afford to pay significant sums to people traffickers.

Also which is likely to be cheaper, providing education to an 18 year old for 7+ years or to an already trained doctor for 2 years to confirm suitable training? Not only can you get doctors faster, but you'll also need to provide them with less training overall. For example in the same time it takes you to train 2 doctors from scratch you could train 15 from overseas.

I think that's a misrepresentation. It's not that anyone extra is bad (probably a small minority of extremists believe that but certainly not most people on the mainstream right). It's more about recognising that, while allowing people who want to migrate to do so is in principle great, there are limits on the rate at which any country can sustainably absorb migrants. There's also a concern that migration should be done legally through the visa system rather than by people (who in many cases would not be eligible for asylum) being smuggled into the country.

Then the majority aren't speaking loud enough that they would be happy with SOME more asylum seekers to be accepted in a reversal of the current policy of making it "toxic" for them.

 

[68000]

Does anyone know the terms of the deal with Rwanda? Are they paying us or offering anything in return for accepting single male migrants who initially wanted to come to Britain?

UK taxpayers will be paying Rwanda for each asylum seeker s ent to Rwanda

 

[Cowley]

Just to say that there’s a thread on the French Elections here now.