Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jon0844]

The Government can't admit Brexit was a disaster (despite preaching about the great deal Northern Ireland now has with the EU), gas prices are now below where they were pre (second) Ukraine invasion by Russia, and Covid is now becoming a distant memory.

So there has to be a new cause for all our problems, and it seems these immigrants can take the blame for a lot of it - including stuff that doesn't make any sense (like the people who think asylum seekers are given houses, cars, and take other people's jobs, all at the same time as plotting to kill us all).

Plus, double bonus, when the UN, EU and more tell Rishi he can't do what he wants, then we have NEW enemies to blame!

 

[The Ham]

I don't understand this. Did you mean "in full time education"?

Sorry for the delay, yes that's what I ment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the current language of the government, whilst it's arguable that it's not the same as 1930's Germany, the question should be which is it closer to the sort of thing that you could have heard in 1930's Germany or to the sort of thing that you would expect to hear from a compassionate person?

Whilst perhaps not exactly what could have been heard in 1930's Germany, it's certainly got those sorts of undertones and therefore it could reasonably be argued that we as a country need to make it clear to those who represent us that we'd rather that they didn't pursue this further.

Whilst having ways to apply for asylum overseas is likely to increase the numbers applying, it also should be considered that they wouldn't be being housed in this country (at great expense to our country) or then need to be removed if unsuccessful (again at significant cost).

Something which needs to be borne in mind is that this isn't the first attempt to restrict people from coming here by this government. The thing to note, is whilst there were 45,000 people risking their lives to cross the channel to arrive to the UK in 2022, as recently as 2018 it was well below 1,000.

Labour pointed out that the last home secretary said very similar things when they brought in the rules about 18 months ago, however almost no-one was put before the courts because of it and if anything the numbers have got worst.

Whilst the numbers sound big (45,000 is a large town) in terms of the number of children born each year (~700,000) it's around 6% of their number, even in terms of net migration (~500,000) it's around 10% (whilst it'll be a smaller percentage of the total immigration).

Those are still significant numbers, especially given there's concerns about housing, school spaces, doctor capacity, etc. however if we didn't have any asylum seekers it's likely that we'd still have those issues.

What would be happening is policy to improve those facilities - however the current government are spending a lot of effort demonising "others" rather than sorting out those policies.

The reason for this is that it's easier to do.

The issue is that there comes a point when the main group who are under attack cease to be a large enough group and so another group is targeted. That or there's still issues (as the policy failings start to impact more and more people) and so more need to be at fault and the same happens, in that another group is targeted.

Are small boats really the biggest issue that the government faces? What about cost of living? Energy bills? Lack of doctors? The wider NHS issues? Lack of housing (or too much building of houses)? The reduction in public transport? Whatever else it is that impacts you in a much larger way than asylum seekers do.

 

[Howardh]

Be interesting to see if the "stop the boats" policy has any effect on the Tories or Sunak's ratings over the weekend. If there's no improvement, what next? Do they go even further to the right or start to realise they are on the wrong path entirely?

 

[jfollows]

The anti-small boats measures won't work, and everyone in government including Suella Braverman knows that they won't work, but they will come up with an excuse for the failure in due course. In the meantime it's a policy which appeals to a certain sort of voter, probably older white males in traditional Labour-voting constituencies which voted Conservative in 2019, to a very broad generalisation.

As The Ham has said, there are far more important things for the government to be highlighting, but they're either intractable or impossible or not going to retain votes.

Of course I will be the first to admit that, as a white middle class older man living in a comfortable suburb the impact of immigration seems entirely positive, and limited to a wider selection of food available in my local supermarket than used to be the case. I am sure that some people have a real problem with immigration, but I don't think it's as important a problem to the country as a whole as it's made out to be by some.

 

[43096]

Be interesting to see if the "stop the boats" policy has any effect on the Tories or Sunak's ratings over the weekend. If there's no improvement, what next? Do they go even further to the right or start to realise they are on the wrong path entirely?

Perhaps the real way to stop the boats would be to tell those looking to come over that Britain isn't what they think it is. It's actually an utterly, utterly screwed up country that no-one in their right mind would want to emigrate to. I bet Cruella would have a real problem admitting that!

 

[Howardh]

Perhaps the real way to stop the boats would be to tell those looking to come over that Britain isn't what they think it is. It's actually an utterly, utterly screwed up country that no-one in their right mind would want to emigrate to. I bet Cruella would have a real problem admitting that!

My thoughts exactly! Perhaps that's the reason that Europe takes in far more than us! I can only summise that the incomers speak English as a second language, so are more comfortable with it, or as many suggest they do have family history here and that they have relatives (etc) here already.

Won't be long before the French are turnign back boatloads of Brits seeking asylum from our, er, asylum!!

 

[takno]

My thoughts exactly! Perhaps that's the reason that Europe takes in far more than us! I can only summise that the incomers speak English as a second language, so are more comfortable with it, or as many suggest they do have family history here and that they have relatives (etc) here already.

Won't be long before the French are turnign back boatloads of Brits seeking asylum from our, er, asylum!!

It's a mistake to assume that we are looking at a larger number of asylum seekers and immigrants than other parts of Europe. The numbers trying to make it as far as the UK are often rather lower than those settling in other countries. There are lots of different reasons for trying to make it here, vary through language, family connections, a global reputation as a prosperous country which we've been putting about for a few hundred years.

One really important factor that applies to the boats though is our substantial and poorly-controlled network of people-smugglers and modern slavers, who tempt people over with lies and then ruin many of those who do make it. Our poorly-funded police and social services are hampered in the efforts they can afford to make in addressing this problem by our idiotic asylum policies, which make it dangerous for the victims to speak up. They often also primarily are financed by and exist to support the inevitable ongoing demand for drugs, which is driven by the insanely outdated drug policies which Suella is such an ardent fan of.

 

[Pete_uk]

The rip off energy prices is what's getting on my nerves. If only we could stop those boats coming over the prices would surely come down.

 

[najaB]

The rip off energy prices is what's getting on my nerves. If only we could stop those boats coming over the prices would surely come down.

Wow! I didn't know we had cabinet ministers posting here.

 

[Typhoon]

The rip off energy prices is what's getting on my nerves. If only we could stop those boats coming over the prices would surely come down.

No emoji? Am I supposed to take this at face value?

 

[WizCastro197]

The rip off energy prices is what's getting on my nerves. If only we could stop those boats coming over the prices would surely come down.

How do the boats have anything to do with energy prices? EDIT: As noted by others, the quoted post must be satirical.

 

[nw1]

I think @Pete_uk 's post is almost certainly satire.

 

[Typhoon]

I think @Pete_uk 's post is almost certainly satire.

Finding another post, I suspect you are right. Unfortunately, there are some, maybe even some on this Forum, who believe it!

 

[yorksrob]

Well, according to the squatter government, boats in the channel are "my priority", whereas having a working train service apparently doesn't feature at all. The sooner they're gone, the better.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Are small boats really the biggest issue that the government faces?

No, clearly it's not the biggest single issue, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the Government is claiming it's more important than other issues like the cost of living, so I'm not sure why you and others keep posting as if the Government has said something like that?

But equally clearly, it is a serious issue that does need solving - and arguably needs solving fairly urgently because, in the absence of a solution, the problem has been rapidly getting worse.

What about cost of living? Energy bills? Lack of doctors? The wider NHS issues? Lack of housing (or too much building of houses)? The reduction in public transport?

Yep. All very important problems that need attention. But surely you're not suggesting that, because those are important problems, the Government shouldn't be doing anything else? That seems to be the tone of your post.

 

[najaB]

But equally clearly, it is a serious issue that does need solving - and arguably needs solving fairly urgently because, in the absence of a solution, the problem has been rapidly getting worse.

I've lost count, but this is at least the fourth solution that the current government has implemented. It's almost like they don't want to actually solve the problem, because that would let those other issues get back into the headlines.

 

[yorksrob]

No, clearly it's not the biggest single issue, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the Government is claiming it's more important than other issues like the cost of living, so I'm not sure why you and others keep posting as if the Government has said something like that?

But equally clearly, it is a serious issue that does need solving - and arguably needs solving fairly urgently because, in the absence of a solution, the problem has been rapidly getting worse.



Yep. All very important problems that need attention. But surely you're not suggesting that, because those are important problems, the Government shouldn't be doing anything else? That seems to be the tone of your post.

They're ignoring the state of the railway. That's reason enough for them to be gone.

 

[Domh245]

No, clearly it's not the biggest single issue, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the Government is claiming it's more important than other issues like the cost of living, so I'm not sure why you and others keep posting as if the Government has said something like that?

Looking at the most recent PMQs

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about our laws. Actually, when I was in Dover yesterday talking to our law enforcement officials, what did they tell me? That precisely because of the law the Conservative Government passed last year, they have now been able to arrest more than double the number of people they did before: 397 in the last six months. But stopping the boats is not just my priority; it is the people’s priority. His position is clear: he wanted to, in his words, scrap the Rwanda deal, he voted against measures to deport foreign criminals, and he even argued against deportation flights. We know why, because on this matter—he talked about his legal background—he is just another lefty lawyer standing in our way

priority
/prʌɪˈɒrɪti/
noun
the fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important than others.

which certainly implies that is the biggest issue they're facing, otherwise Rishi would have gone with "one of my priorities"

 

[Gloster]

My opinion is that the government reckons that immigration is the one area where they might be able to outflank Labour in the swing seats that they must win: everything else is against them. It also has the advantage that there is a chance that they can use it to sow dvision within Labour (although Labour can usually do that without assistance), so that they can claim a divided Labour Party is unfit or incapable of running the country. They are therefore doing everything they can to whip up hostility towards migrants to turn what is a major concern for only a minority of voters (albeit a significant one), many of whom are already likely to vote their way, into the big issue at the next election.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

My opinion is that the government reckons that immigration is the one area where they might be able to outflank Labour in the swing seats that they must win: everything else is against them. It also has the advantage that there is a chance that they can use it to sow dvision within Labour (although Labour can usually do that without assistance), so that they can claim a divided Labour Party is unfit or incapable of running the country. They are therefore doing everything they can to whip up hostility towards migrants to turn what is a major concern for only a minority of voters (albeit a significant one), many of whom are already likely to vote their way, into the big issue at the next election.

For sure this is one area where Labour will be outfoxed by the Tories and on an issue where they can play the moral high ground card but that will turn a certain element of the electorate away from them. Wont win the election but it puts the cat among the pigeons and erodes the chances of a decent majority.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

They are therefore doing everything they can to whip up hostility towards migrants

I think Gary Lineker has already said that!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looking at the most recent PMQs

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...ribution-BA867D9A-D260-4EB6-B142-F7B11521D1AB

But stopping the boats is not just my priority; it is the people’s priority

which certainly implies that is the biggest issue they're facing, otherwise Rishi would have gone with "one of my priorities"

Good call on digging out the quote. But 'my priority' does not necessarily mean 'my only priority'. It indicates that it is a (possibly, of several) priority. In fact, it's the 5th of 5 pledges that Rishi Sunak laid out back in January, which indicates that it is one of 5 priorities: (link)

First, we will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.

Second, we will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.

Third, we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.

Fourth, NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.

Fifth, we will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.

 

[najaB]

But 'my priority' does not necessarily mean 'my only priority'. It indicates that it is a (possibly, of several) priority.

That may well be what he meant, but it's not what he said.

 

[Gloster]

That may well be what he meant, but it's not what he said.

Exactly. When he says ‘my priority’ without any qualification it is implicit that this is his sole priority or, at the very least, clearly the most important of a number of priorities. He also claims it is ‘the people’s priority’, but on what basis is he making this claim? Has there been extensive and impartial research into this or does he mean that that is what the people who have his ear think, but are they representative? All too often this is an excuse to do what you want to do anyway.

 

[158756]

I've lost count, but this is at least the fourth solution that the current government has implemented. It's almost like they don't want to actually solve the problem, because that would let those other issues get back into the headlines.

It is probably beneficial to the government to keep immigration high on the agenda, but I don't think there is any easy solution to the boats whoever is in charge. The problem in general is that there are more people who want to come here than the British public wants to let in. The current situation is not good for anyone except the people smugglers, but the difficulty of making the journey probably limits the numbers. Any solution which involves dealing with the problem by making it easier to claim asylum from abroad has to explain how it won't multiply the numbers applying, and why those who are not accepted won't still come in the boats anyway.

On the subject of other countries taking more than us, I suspect that public opinion on this is influenced by the critical shortage of housing, doctors, schools etc in this country. Plus that the UK, especially England, is already more densely populated than most of Europe and already has high immigration and a rapidly increasing population. Many European states which might be seen as more welcoming have for many years struggled with a stagnant or declining population - in percentage terms the population of England grew by more in the last 10 years than Germany has in half a century.

 

[najaB]

It is probably beneficial to the government to keep immigration high on the agenda, but I don't think there is any easy solution to the boats whoever is in charge.

Indeed, it is a difficult problem to solve. Any effective solution has to include measures which act to reduce people's desire to leave where they are. This means targeted aid and assistance in developing civil society and functional economies in less-developed nations.

People only make the perilous journey from sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East because they see it as a way to escape oppressive conditions at home.

On the subject of other countries taking more than us, I suspect that public opinion on this is influenced by the critical shortage of housing, doctors, schools etc in this country.

That may well be true, but which party has had over a decade to enact policies to tackle these issues?

Plus that the UK, especially England, is already more densely populated than most of Europe and already has high immigration and a rapidly increasing population.

While the UK's population density is high by European standards, it is low compared to global averages. As noted in other threads, less than 7% of our land area is built environment.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

While the UK's population density is high by European standards, it is low compared to global averages. As noted in other threads, less than 7% of our land area is built environment.

Is our population density low?

Some Googling reveals that the population density of England is 430 people/km2, and of the UK as a whole 270 people/km2 (I'm using km2 = km squared).

More googling says that the habitable land area of the World is about 63 million km2 (That's total land area minus mountains and desert, which seems a reasonable approximation for habitable land). With a World population in 2021 of 7.9 billion, that gives a global population density of around 125 people/km2.

 

[najaB]

More googling says that the habitable land area of the World is about 63 million km2 (That's total land area minus mountains and desert, which seems a reasonable approximation for habitable land). With a World population in 2021 of 7.9 billion, that gives a global population density of around 125 people/km2.

However, considering that three of the largest countries in the world (Russia, Canada and Australia) represent about 22% of the land area but only about 3% of the worlds population skews the averages a bit.

 

[158756]

Indeed, it is a difficult problem to solve. Any effective solution has to include measures which act to reduce people's desire to leave where they are. This means targeted aid and assistance in developing civil society and functional economies in less-developed nations.

People only make the perilous journey from sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East because they see it as a way to escape oppressive conditions at home.

True, but how achievable is any of this? We should be helping with these things, but it would probably take decades of all the developed world working together to make any real difference. And in some countries the factors pushing people out are beyond our ability to influence. There have been many countries much poorer than the UK for hundreds of years, there will always be countries experiencing conflict or economic problems. It is not realistic to think that those situations can change in any timescale meaningful to the government or voters. Yet large numbers of people travelling across continents to get here is a relatively recent issue.

That may well be true, but which party has had over a decade to enact policies to tackle these issues?

While the UK's population density is high by European standards, it is low compared to global averages. As noted in other threads, less than 7% of our land area is built environment.

Housing is an issue where the voting public want to have their cake and eat it too - no one wants a shortage of housing, but no one wants to build enough new houses, and no one wants the value of their property to fall. No one wants to see all the countryside paved over, and most people don't want to live in large blocks of flats. All political parties campaign vigorously against even the current level of housebuilding when it suits them, including those in favour of more relaxed immigration laws and Conservatives at backbench and council levels going against their own government.

 

[JamesT]

However, considering that three of the largest countries in the world (Russia, Canada and Australia) represent about 22% of the land area but only about 3% of the worlds population skews the averages a bit.

Eyeballing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density then Europe seems a fairly densely populated continent in the world. Quite a few European countries high up the list.
Taking the Most Populous table where they strip out small countries then the UK is 15th of 102. If England were an entry by itself it would be just ahead of India.
I don’t think you can really say that the UK is low density. Although only 6% may be classified as built on, that doesn’t make the rest immediately available for housing use. Over half is used for agriculture for example.