Reform UK discussion

[SargeNpton]

Oh no - their rhetoric and dog whistles have led us to this point.

They and their “subscribers” (I won’t use the word members as those stupid enough to part with their cash to the Limited Company have no voting rights in regards to replacing leader or shaping policy) deserve to wear this badge of enablement of those incels we have seen in Dover and Portsmouth this week totally.

One, or both, protests were organised by Danny Thomas and his "Patriot Platform". Nothing to do with Reform.

 

[35B]

It needs to be part of a co-ordinated set of actions to eliminate the overall set of pull factors so as to make the UK no more attractive a place to come to than any other country.

Well, we could start by changing our spoken language from one spoken world wide. And payment of reparations for the harms caused by British imperial adventures could reduce the relative desirability of the U.K. Come to that, so could having a neo-fascist at No 10 undermining the basic principles of the rule of law and trying to turn the clock back to before 1689.

But I don’t suspect any of those are really what you have in mind.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Well, we could start by changing our spoken language from one spoken world wide. And payment of reparations for the harms caused by British imperial adventures could reduce the relative desirability of the U.K. Come to that, so could having a neo-fascist at No 10 undermining the basic principles of the rule of law and trying to turn the clock back to before 1689.

But I don’t suspect any of those are really what you have in mind.

I am not handing over so much as a penny for something I didn't do. That is non-negotiable.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I am not handing over so much as a penny for something I didn't do. That is non-negotiable.

Ah, OK. Is that how responsible, grown-up government works?

 

[oldman]

It needs to be part of a co-ordinated set of actions to eliminate the overall set of pull factors so as to make the UK no more attractive a place to come to than any other country.

I admire your optimism. Basically the line of a lot of posters on this thread is:

1 Slimy self-serving politicians try to exploit the situation (true)
2 Thuggish bullies try to exploit the situation (true)
3 Less-educated people are misled into following the slimy politicians and thuggish bullies (sometimes true but far from universally)

Therefore any concerns about migration - community cohesion, loss of control, criteria, numbers, costs etc. can be dismissed as coming from the above. As for solutions ...

 

[35B]

I am not handing over so much as a penny for something I didn't do. That is non-negotiable.

And I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should. I am suggesting that some of the things that the right are so hostile to are the sort of thing that might actually help reduce the pull factors that @TUC refers to.

It's a (very) delayed reaction, but Britain is reaping what it sowed decades and centuries ago. Those are among the pull factors that draw people to want to come to the UK.

When asking to remove them, it's worth also thinking what the request may mean - I'd far rather live somewhere people want to come to, than somewhere people want to leave.

 

[AlterEgo]

One, or both, protests were organised by Danny Thomas and his "Patriot Platform". Nothing to do with Reform.

Yes, those are definitely to the right of Reform.

 

[BAFRA77]

One, or both, protests were organised by Danny Thomas and his "Patriot Platform". Nothing to do with Reform.

Portsmouth protest leader calls Nigel Farage his hero and blames 'lefties' for smashed police car

Thomas said: ‘You know how bad the press are. They’ve gone for Nigel on every single level.

‘Nigel is a hero to this country for what he did for Brexit, and he’s a hero to this country for what he’s trying to do with the boats.

‘All I would ask you to do is take the message back to him and say, Nigel, I don’t think it’s a good idea to be calling working-class [disgusting].’

He added that his followers were likely to vote Reform in three years’ time but he had had enough of words.

He told him: ‘What do you expect the men of this country to do when they see all this violence against women, they see all these sexual assaults? What would you do as a man, as a father? Sit down and just wait? They’re coming out and making their voices heard.’

When challenged by Yusuf on the damage to police vehicles, he claimed: ‘That was nothing to do with us. That was probably done by the lefties to try and make us look bad.’

 

[bahnause]

We should take a similar approach to other Westetn countries. Otherwise, it does add to the impression of the UK being a soft touch.

One could start by allowing refugees to enter the country via legal routes, as most European countries do anyway because of their land borders.

 

[nr758123]

The data don't bear that out.

Around 9,700 people who arrived on small boats were returnedfrom the UK to another country between 2018 and June 2026. This represents 5% of the total number of small boat arrivals during this period. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/

Most of that period was under a Tory government which chose to process asylum applications really slowly, resulting in a big increase in the numbers of asylum seekers in temporary accommodation.

Immigration ministers during that period included Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman. I wonder what became of them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:09 ==

Well I suppose we could make ourselves a crappier country.

Oh wait.....

I think you have just explained the reasoning behind 14 years of Conservative government.

 

[D6130]

That's not really a satisfactory answer. Given you specifically wanted the approach to lifesaving to mimic "other (unnamed) Western countries", I'm curious as to what, exactly, the approach is there and what we should be emulating.

Now I don't actually know what, say, the Italian coast guard does with relation to:


Do they take the same approach or not? Do you know? Because I genuinely don't, but my vague understanding is that Frontex actively surveil the southern Med to look for crossings and the Italian coast guard picks them up before there is any mortal danger.

There are basically two options - one, you send out the RNLI to rescue people who are at risk in your waters in totally unsuitable craft. This means people don't die, and it also means they get dropped off somewhere dedicated where they can be processed.

The other option is to just not do that. This will result in more deaths in our waters which are our moral responsibility. For those who succeed, they will not land in Dover but may well use many crossing points and landing areas. So you'll get random groups of men and families landing in Dungeness or Hythe or Hastings or perhaps even somewhere in the countryside where they can just walk inland and fade in.

The dog whistle is always "well if some more people died in the Channel maybe it would focus some minds", so if you don't want people to think that about you then it probably would help not to suggest the RNLI are making the situation worse. Because if they weren't rescuing people, the second scenario will happen. And if it was me and 40 of my mates risking our lives standing on a small dinghy built for 10 floating nine miles off the coast of Britain and someone spotted us, I think we would all agree the RNLI ought to come out.

The UK is a de facto attractive place to claim asylum because we speak English. The vast majority of asylum seekers in the UK speak English well or very well. And I'll say again - this situation is the creation of the people who hate it the most; Reform voters and Brexiteers. They're the ones who took us out of the EU, and hence out of Dublin III. But it's left to someone else to sort out, as usual.

My main objection to Reform voters is that, while I have sympathy with the basic principle that the social contract is just plain broken, they aren't actually looking for a solution, or to do any hard thinking or compromise or work collegiately. They just want to complain and be victims, and to be considered oppressed ("help I'm being invaded!"). It's a weird kind of reverse wokery which relies on identity politics, which is already very 2020 and sort of passé now.

Excellent summary of the situation. Thanks for posting that!

 

[TUC]

Well, we could start by changing our spoken language from one spoken world wide. And payment of reparations for the harms caused by British imperial adventures could reduce the relative desirability of the U.K. Come to that, so could having a neo-fascist at No 10 undermining the basic principles of the rule of law and trying to turn the clock back to before 1689.

But I don’t suspect any of those are really what you have in mind.

If anything, I think one part of reducing the pull factors should be that the ability to acquire long term leave to remain in the UK is dependent upon demonstrating within a specified number of years that one is fluent in English. It is a key means by which people will be able to genuinely integrate in society.

As for repatriations, as most of my ancestors were farm labourer, very likely on minimal incomes, I don't think people like them benefited much from 'imperial adventures', do you?

 

[35B]

If anything, I think one part of reducing the pull factors should be that the ability to acquire long term leave to remain in the UK is dependent upon demonstrating within a specified number of years that one is fluent in English. It is a key means by which people will be able to genuinely integrate in society.

I agree, that requirement should be there - and it's absence has been a problem for decades.

But there's a quid pro quo - the opportunities to learn have to be available for people to use.

My mother taught English as a Second Language to immigrants (mostly south asian, but a number of african and latino as well) in the 1980s. Back then it was treated as a low priority, being provided through the local authority adult education system, and always at risk of budget cuts.

If that's not done, then you will create an injustice of the kind you see with undocumented migrants in the US, or with IPP prisoners here - people who can't do the right thing even when they try, because the resources aren't there. And before you say "but that won't happen", reductions in precisely those budgets have happened in my county, which just happens to be Reform led.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Ah, OK. Is that how responsible, grown-up government works?

This isn't school anymore. You can't chuck me in detention and tell me that being innocent is against the school rules.

 

[bahnause]

It needs to be part of a co-ordinated set of actions to eliminate the overall set of pull factors so as to make the UK no more attractive a place to come to than any other country.

Politicians often argue that things like "generous welfare," "free housing," or "the right to work" act as magnets drawing asylum seekers to specific countries. Decades of research, including a major study of European asylum applications from 2008 to today, show that this is false.

The single strongest pull factor is having friends, family, or a community from home already established in the destination country. These networks offer a landing pad: housing, informal job leads, emotional support, and language help. Good luck with eliminating them.

 

[TUC]

I agree, that requirement should be there - and it's absence has been a problem for decades.

But there's a quid pro quo - the opportunities to learn have to be available for people to use.

My mother taught English as a Second Language to immigrants (mostly south asian, but a number of african and latino as well) in the 1980s. Back then it was treated as a low priority, being provided through the local authority adult education system, and always at risk of budget cuts.

If that's not done, then you will create an injustice of the kind you see with undocumented migrants in the US, or with IPP prisoners here - people who can't do the right thing even when they try, because the resources aren't there. And before you say "but that won't happen", reductions in precisely those budgets have happened in my county, which just happens to be Reform led.

I agree that ESOL teaching availability is an important part of the equation. I think that is a different issue to multiple public services offering interpreters which has the effect of disincentivising any need to learn English.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:54 ==

Politicians often argue that things like "generous welfare," "free housing," or "the right to work" act as magnets drawing asylum seekers to specific countries. Decades of research, including a major study of European asylum applications from 2008 to today, show that this is false.

The single strongest pull factor is having friends, family, or a community from home already established in the destination country. These networks offer a landing pad: housing, informal job leads, emotional support, and language help. Good luck with eliminating them.

That does have the effect of a number of people having passed thrpugh perhaps five or six safe countries before reaching the UK. The asylum system needs to be based upon people getting a safe country, not their country of first preference. There would need to be joint arrangements so that the first safe countries in major asylum routes do not end up acquiring all of the burden, but that is a different issue to a free choice of countries.

 

[35B]

I agree that ESOL teaching availability is an important part of the equation. I think that is a different issue to multiple public services offering interpreters which has the effect of disincentivising any need to learn English.

You might be surprised that I agree. But what I notice is that there's a nasty tendency for politicians campaigning against provision of interpreters to then do nothing about helping those people learn English.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree, that requirement should be there - and it's absence has been a problem for decades.

Thankfully that has been corrected as to qualify for ILR (or Citizenship down the line) you need to demonstrate an ability to communicate in English at at least a B1 level in many cases to get ILR:

What is B1 Intermediate English?​

B1 Intermediate is the third level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). At B1 level, English learners can understand the main points of clear communication on familiar topics, deal with most situations while travelling, and produce simple organised spoken and written communication.

A B1 learner can communicate independently in everyday situations, talk about experiences and future plans, and explain opinions using connected language.

B1 English: What Can You Do?​

Skill Area	B1 Can-Do Statement
Reading	Understand the main points of texts about familiar topics.
Listening	Follow clear standard speech on everyday subjects.
Speaking	Manage most situations when travelling in an English-speaking environment.
Writing	Write simple, organised texts on familiar subjects.
Communication	Describe experiences, events, plans and personal opinions.

Example B1 Language Tasks​

A learner at B1 level can typically:

• write an email to arrange travel or social plans
• describe a memorable holiday or experience
• give reasons for an opinion in a discussion
• understand articles about everyday topics and current issues
• make hotel, restaurant or transport arrangements while travelling
• write a simple report, blog post or personal story
• participate in conversations about work, study, hobbies and future plans

These tasks reflect the ability to use English independently in many real-world situations while continuing to develop accuracy and range.

B1 Intermediate | LearnEnglish

Learners who achieve B1 Intermediate level can understand information about familiar topics. They can communicate in most situations whilst travelling in an English-speaking area. They can write simple connected texts on familiar topics.

learnenglish.britishcouncil.org

Some people are exempt from that requirement to be fair such as citizens from countries where English is already widely spoken (like New Zealand or Barbados), if you're here on a work visa where you already had to prove your English proficiency as part of getting the visa, if you're fleeing domestic violence in the UK and a few others. At the moment refugees (as in people who have had their asylum claim decided in their favour) are exempt and personally I'm not convinced that that is a sensible thing. I think if you're applying for ILR having been a refugee you should still need to demonstrate English proficiency. After all they need to have been here for five years as a refugee before they can apply for ILR. If you've been here for 5 years it's not unreasonable to ask that you have English proficiency B1 before getting ILR even as a refugee.

 

[bahnause]

That does have the effect of a number of people having passed thrpugh perhaps five or six safe countries before reaching the UK. The asylum system needs to be based upon people getting a safe country, not their country of first preference. There would need to be joint arrangements so that the first safe countries in major asylum routes do not end up acquiring all of the burden, but that is a different issue to a free choice of countries.

If every refugee had to stop and stay in the first safe country they reached, a tiny number of geographic border states would bear the entire global responsibility for displaced people. The idea treats refugees as administrative units rather than humans with existing ties. A person's "country of preference" is usually driven by critical survival factors.

• Countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Colombia, and Poland already host the vast majority of the world's refugees.
• Expecting these specific nations to absorb millions more simply due to their geography is politically and economically unsustainable

Even within the European Union, attempts to fairly distribute asylum seekers (like the Dublin Regulation or various quota systems) have faced severe political resistance and repeatedly failed. It’s the usual right-wing ploy to call for completely unworkable solutions, just so they can complain that nothing is being done.

 

[SuspectUsual]

This isn't school anymore. You can't chuck me in detention and tell me that being innocent is against the school rules.

I'm not quite sure what that means

But the question remains - how can you say you say "I am not handing over so much as a penny for something I didn't do. That is non-negotiable" when anything that is handed over is handed over by the government. Assuming you're a tax payer, you have no control over what they do with money beyond casting a vote every few years

 

[Tetchytyke]

The right wing here love to go on about the number of boat people, which hovers around 40,000-50,000 arrivals per year, give or take. But for context, Turkey alone is host to over three million refugees, primarily from Syria but also from Iran and Iraq. Lebanon was hosting almost one million refugees before our dear friends in Tel Aviv decided to bomb them into oblivion, and those refugees (as well as all the displaced Lebanese) are now also in Turkey and Jordan.

The reason why the right wing go on about refugees seeking refuge in the first safe country they come to is because they know that the UK will almost never be the first safe country they come to. It's also why they go on about automatically rejecting claims from people who arrive here on tourist or student visas- those are the only ways you would be able to get on a plane and get directly from Syria or Iran to the UK.

I agree that ESOL teaching availability is an important part of the equation. I think that is a different issue to multiple public services offering interpreters which has the effect of disincentivising any need to learn English.

Interpreters are used in very limited circumstances, usually in situations where someone's conversational English won't really help them fully understand the gravity of a situation. Offering interpreters in these situations doesn't disincentivise people from learning English. Interpreters are expensive and a pain in the backside to arrange, agencies only use them if they have to.

It is also worth observing that those involved in people trafficking and modern slavery will usually prevent the people they traffic from learning English. This means that they can't escape and, even if they do, they have no way of communicating their distress without using interpreters. And if you think modern slavery is rare, you are sadly very much mistaken. Even on my little island, it is a problem:

'Living in fear under our noses': Harrowing accounts of modern slavery in the island

‘When I met Jenny she was pale and scared - when I went back to meet her a second time there were 15 other people waiting to see me’

www.iomtoday.co.im

Modern slavery is present in the Isle of Man right under our noses, the island advocate who has done more than anyone else to highlight the issue has warned.

Some 165 people packed into Promenade Methodist Church Hall gave a standing ovation to Maria Bridson following her harrowing account of migrants living here in fear after being duped with the offer of fake jobs.

Maria Bridson, senior advocate at BridsonHalsall Advocates, was recently awarded the 2024 Deemster Kerruish Endeavour Award in recognition of her work with victims of modern slavery.

During her talk, she told the story of Jenny - not her real name - a 48-year-old Filipino who had been working in the Middle East when she came across a Facebook advert offering a great job opportunity in the UK as a cleaner with good rates of pay. The ad was plausible and the agents she spoke to were persuasive.

She sold land back in the Philippines, spent all her savings and borrowed money to pay the £2,500 to the recruitment agent. She paid for her own visas, flights and medical tests - in total about £5,000 but it was an investment in her future.

But shortly before her departure, she was asked for more money - for an additional flight to a place called Ronaldsway. By this stage she had quit her job, left her flat and cancelled her visa in the Middle East.

‘There was no going back so she borrowed yet more money and got on the flight,’ said Maria.

‘She had never heard of the Isle of Man before she landed here and it was at that stage that her dream job turned into a nightmare.’

Instead of working as a cleaner in a hotel as promised, Jenny was sent to process shellfish. It was long hours, and cold, hard work.

The single strongest pull factor is having friends, family, or a community from home already established in the destination country. These networks offer a landing pad: housing, informal job leads, emotional support, and language help. Good luck with eliminating them.

Those landing pads all also have a colonial history to them.

The top ten originating countries for asylum in the UK are Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, India, Somalia, Syria, and Vietnam. Of those, only Vietnam has never been under British control, although Eritrea was only briefly under British control in the 1940s.

Same reason why asylum seekers from Algeria, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, etc, all end up in France and why Belgium has a notable Moroccan population.

 

[Razorblades]

The vast majority of asylum seekers in the UK speak English well or very well.

For balance, I suggest that the figures for expenditure on interpreting services call into question the use of the term 'vast majority.' *

One example is a £19,000,000.00 contract for interpretation services placed in Q1 2024. This obviously doesn't have any sense of scale for comparison, but it is but one of many such contracts.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/8487c43b-bcb1-4491-9c16-295ba8e90d39

Link is to a Government web page:
Language Services - Translation & Interpretation
Home Office
Published date: 3 April 2024
Value of contract
£19,000,000

Procurement reference
tender_415894/1338621

* I looked up what is generally accepted as meant by 'vast majority,' and this came up: The phrase "vast majority" is an idiom used to emphasize that something applies to nearly all members of a group or category, often more than 95% of the whole

 

[35B]

For balance, I suggest that the figures for expenditure on interpreting services call into question the use of the term 'vast majority.' *

One example is a £19,000,000.00 contract for interpretation services placed in Q1 2024. This obviously doesn't have any sense of scale for comparison, but it is but one of many such contracts.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/8487c43b-bcb1-4491-9c16-295ba8e90d39

Link is to a Government web page:
Language Services - Translation & Interpretation
Home Office
Published date: 3 April 2024
Value of contract
£19,000,000

Procurement reference
tender_415894/1338621

* I looked up what is generally accepted as meant by 'vast majority,' and this came up: The phrase "vast majority" is an idiom used to emphasize that something applies to nearly all members of a group or category, often more than 95% of the whole

That example suggests a serious risk of slipping into the fallacy of large numbers.

£19m is a lot of money, but needs to be understood in some kind of context. If divided across the whole population, that's 27p each. Assuming a (probably low) cost of £20/hour for interpreters, some simple maths suggests that if the contract is for a year, that equates to a full time equivalent level of just over 120 interpreters for the country (£19m/£20 per hour = 950,000 hours; 950,000/35 hours per day* = 27,143 mandays, 27,143/220 working days* per year = 123). Bearing in mind that interpreters are required for a range of reasons, and the service will be for a lot more than just asylum seekers.

This is for the courts service, so is about people who are at risk of their liberty, and whom the law considers innocent.

* - standard ballpark working hours and days per year for analysis; they're close enough for the general picture

 

[Ted633]

For balance, I suggest that the figures for expenditure on interpreting services call into question the use of the term 'vast majority.' *

One example is a £19,000,000.00 contract for interpretation services placed in Q1 2024. This obviously doesn't have any sense of scale for comparison, but it is but one of many such contracts.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/8487c43b-bcb1-4491-9c16-295ba8e90d39

Link is to a Government web page:
Language Services - Translation & Interpretation
Home Office
Published date: 3 April 2024
Value of contract
£19,000,000

Procurement reference
tender_415894/1338621

* I looked up what is generally accepted as meant by 'vast majority,' and this came up: The phrase "vast majority" is an idiom used to emphasize that something applies to nearly all members of a group or category, often more than 95% of the whole

My town has a couple of asylum hotels (and unfortunately the protests that go with them)
Over the summer, a group of us play volleyball in the local park and fairly regularly a few of the ‘residents’ come along and join in. I wouldn’t say from my experience that the vast majority speak very good English (I’d say that would be a minority of the ones i’ve met), however all of them speak English to a level where communication is possible without too much difficulty.
A statement that a vast majority speak some English is probably about right.

 

[Razorblades]

My town has a couple of asylum hotels (and unfortunately the protests that go with them)
Over the summer, a group of us play volleyball in the local park and fairly regularly a few of the ‘residents’ come along and join in. I wouldn’t say from my experience that the vast majority speak very good English (I’d say that would be a minority of the ones i’ve met), however all of them speak English to a level where communication is possible without too much difficulty.

A statement that a vast majority speak some English is probably about right.

With the greatest respect, the 'few' that join in could be the only ones that speak English, to be fair. I certainly don't think it supports beyond doubt an assertion that 95% speak some English.

 

[speedy1]

If divided across the whole population, that's 27p each.

Isn't that the opposite fallacy? You could justify anything like that. HS2 @ £100bn is just £28 per person over a 50 year life span. My council tax bill is a mere 18p/hour.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I'm not quite sure what that means

But the question remains - how can you say you say "I am not handing over so much as a penny for something I didn't do. That is non-negotiable" when anything that is handed over is handed over by the government. Assuming you're a tax payer, you have no control over what they do with money beyond casting a vote every few years

And whose taxes go up to pay for it...

 

[35B]

Isn't that the opposite fallacy? You could justify anything like that. HS2 @ £100bn is just £28 per person over a 50 year life span. My council tax bill is a mere 18p/hour.

Both arguments have truth in them. But when, in a political discussion, someone drops in a number and says "that's a lot of money" I always like to ask myself "how much is it really".

That's where my very quick fag packet analysis is probably more useful, because it looks at what is being bought for that money. Suddenly, across a country the size of Britain, that looks rather smaller

 

[D1511]

£19m is roughly what a mid-sized county council spends on pothole repairs annually......so a pretty piffling amount in other words ....

 

[AlterEgo]

For balance, I suggest that the figures for expenditure on interpreting services call into question the use of the term 'vast majority.' *

One example is a £19,000,000.00 contract for interpretation services placed in Q1 2024. This obviously doesn't have any sense of scale for comparison, but it is but one of many such contracts.

Interpretation. For what and whom? Asylum seekers? Or have you just plucked this off Google? You do know there are nearly a million "regular" migrants - as well as people born here - who do not speak English well and who use public services? Might this sort of service mostly be catering for this group and not the 40,000 or so people who are seeking asylum at any given moment?

* I looked up what is generally accepted as meant by 'vast majority,' and this came up: The phrase "vast majority" is an idiom used to emphasize that something applies to nearly all members of a group or category, often more than 95% of the whole

Smells like an AI slop summary. I mean, "vast majority" is not even an idiom! If you look at the government's own reporting on refugee outcomes, 71% of asylum seekers report speaking English well or very well at the outset and this increases to over 90% once they have been here for a few years.

The use of a modifier like vast is subjective and does not mean "over 95%" in modern British English, as the following articles would illustrate:

80%

Vast majority of Europe's key habitats in poor or bad condition – report

State of Nature in the EU survey finds only a quarter of species have good conservation status

www.theguardian.com

Four in five

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/06/vast-majority-of-nhs-trusts-still-rely-on-pen-and-paper/

70%

RSPCA research shows owners 'downplay their grief' due to stigma

An owner said her grief was overwhelming when her cat died last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

73%

Would you choose £50,000 over the chance of £1m?

The vast majority of people - particularly women - answer a survey saying they'd take the certainty over chance.

www.bbc.co.uk