Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The PM should not be interfering and demanding retrials. First Starmer is accused of wrongfully interfering to create a ‘two-tier’ system, now they are demanding that he interferes when the verdict is not what they want.
What next? Saying you'd demand another referendum if you got 48% of the vote, but if you get 52% then there must never be another referendum until the end of time because the 'people have spoken'?
I'm sure Trump is continuing to try and find a way to stay in power forever. He's said many times he has the most votes and everyone wants him, so why have another election?
Perhaps I've missed it already, but Heathrow Airport is now sponsoring Reform.
This will snowball now, as soon as you have a handful of fairly reputable and major organisations backing you, especially ones that are well known in the British psyche, they'll attract even greater support, and more importantly, finance.
For Heathrow, it probably makes total sense - get a party that seems to help crack down on green policies, allow even greater airport expansion, reduced regulation, reduce employment taxes.
I do think the rift with Tommy Robinson / Elon Musk will be problematic for Farage - who seem to be promoting Advance UK - this could split the right wing vote to the detriment of both parties.
but with Labour failing to tame persistently high inflation from high energy costs and failing to get us out of a tax - inflation doom cycle heading to stagflation, mass migration isn't a good look. Then you have 800k people a year entering the UK, it should be about 200-250k at most.
Most people coming into the UK are not on boats. Far more people are visiting or studying.
You may have also noticed a shortage of jobs in hospitality, the NHS, care homes, farming (fruit picking etc) and much more.
If these people were processed faster and were deemed able to stay then they'd be able to start working. No more benefits, and contributing to the economy and filling the jobs that natives either can't or won't do. You'll be thankful they're paying tax and national insurance to help fund an ageing population. It might just keep the state pension going a few more years...
The British state should work for the British citizen and taxpayer, we cannot be responsible because of other regimes, cultures and customs. We need to be fair, respectful to our own and that's just in my view.
Are you sure you're not Nigel Farage? You sound an awful lot like him.
It's quite possible to both look after our own citizens and provide refuge for people who are fleeing from regimes where their lives would be in danger. I'll ask you directly: would you refuse a gay man asylum and deport him back to a country such as Afghanistan, knowing full well that he may well be executed because of who he is?
It's far from cruel. The centre left in Denmark does it because there is one true national interest and it's based on a just pragmatism and their welfare system is the most humane on earth. Are you saying every other country is cruel and we British must be benevolent angels and mollycoddle migrants with no criminal record checks that come from countries where rape is not even a crime and many men think they have the natural right to rape a woman? There are countless official sources of information about sexual assault being widespread in these countries.
First of all, could you please enlighten us by providing a list of the countries where rape is not a crime? Secondly, the idea that men have the natural right to rape is not exclusive to foreign-born men; I think you'll find that there are some despicable individuals who were born here and also think they're so entitled. Thirdly, what are these sources of information about sexual assault being widespread in these countries? Again, please enlighten us.
It's a criminal act on the part of our governments to even admit these people, all young men. I do not want Britain being seen as the soft touch. You give an inch, they take a mile. The role of government is not to be a charity to the world's global poor. It's bad for our women and girls and that's it. Britan must take a hardline zero tolerance approach, and build a system the world will envy.
At this rate I'll be hearing Nige in my sleep! "All young men". It's a pity that you failed to include the words "fighting age" in that sentence; I've just missed out on a full-house on my asylum bingo card "Soft touch" is another silly soundbite with no factual basis; the process of claiming asylum is not an easy path, as @ainsworth74 explained to you earlier.
You make the assumption that everyone who comes over here is a rapist when that's clearly not the case; while there may be a few cases going through the courts it is in no way representative of all the people who come here, and let's not forget that everyone here is entitled to a fair trial and is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "build a system the world will envy", but I have to admit that it sends a bit of a shiver down my spine.
By the way, it's not a criminal act on the part of our governments to admit "these people"; we have obligations under International Law, but you'd probably dismiss that anyway.
How is the NHS broken? What's your experience of it? How would you turn off and re-boot the NHS? I can see the Faragist party abolishing the NHS and making us all pay stupidly expensive insurance premiums per month for crappy coverage just like the US have - is that the reboot you want?
Arguably, Reform are the establishment - their policies are all neo liberal in character, continuing decades of handing the country over to private business and shady foreign money, and sucking up to the US. The division of ordinary people into worthy and unworthy groups is nothing new, either - that’s been the status quo for centuries, and a common tactic of those seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of the working class.
Are you sure you're not Nigel Farage? You sound an awful lot like him.
It's quite possible to both look after our own citizens and provide refuge for people who are fleeing from regimes where their lives would be in danger. I'll ask you directly: would you refuse a gay man asylum and deport him back to a country such as Afghanistan, knowing full well that he may well be executed because of who he is?
It would be outrageous to not deport him just because we think he has the right not to keep private life private in another country. You'll find very few people that would support keeping somebody in this country because they don't want to stay in the closet. It is absurd. On that basis we must provide asylum to all non straight people in non liberal countries, which means we must allow potentially 50 million people UK asylum, no questions asked. This is drifting into silliness.
I'm not sure what you mean by "build a system the world will envy", but I have to admit that it sends a bit of a shiver down my spine.
By the way, it's not a criminal act on the part of our governments to admit "these people"; we have obligations under International Law, but you'd probably dismiss that anyway.
The first and foremost role of the state is to provide security to its people. If it does not do that, it needs to be dissoved and replaced and the new state must have the confidence, faith and trust of its people. This is the primary objective of the state. We will withdraw from the ECHR, we shouldn't be bound to foreign laws, we should only be bound to our own laws, Brexit was about autonomy as well. Allowing in large numbers of people with no criminal record checks is a gross failure of national security. When a plane flies over foriegn airpsace, has an engine problem and must land, the passengers must remain on the plane, and on occasions are allowed into the terminal building. The same concept should apply for illegals when entering foreign territory.
I'm not going into this debate again because these are frankly pointless, I can post all the evidence until I'm blue in the face and you'll still believe this country will benefit from unlimited mass migration. I would ask you - what objective is this meant to achieve besides destabilisation of the state?
I'm not going into this debate again because these are frankly pointless, I can post all the evidence until I'm blue in the face and you'll still believe this country will benefit from unlimited mass migration. I would ask you - what objective is this meant to achieve besides destabilisation of the state?
Petty, narrow minded little Englander attitudes aren’t going to be helpful in the long run. Deliberately making ourselves international outsiders is a pointless act of deliberate self harm. And remind me how Brexit is going?
1 The state should generally be able to control who crosses its borders
2 The state should generally be able to control overall levels of migration
3 The state should process asylum claims in a humane and expeditious way
As a matter of practical politics, you need 1 and 2 to get 3. This appears to be the view of our centre-left government and our liberal-minded prime minister. I agree.
It's not "stay in the closet" though, is it. It's "will be tortured and murdered for his sexuality". It's easy to trivialise these things when you ignore the brutality of them.
On that basis we must provide asylum to all non straight people in non liberal countries, which means we must allow potentially 50 million people UK asylum, no questions asked.
Do other states do criminal record checks on people who visit? How will criminal record checks improve security in a meaninfgul way? What will be the impact if businesspeople and tourists are not let into the country due to a lack of, or failing to pass a criminal record check?
When a plane flies over foriegn airpsace, has an engine problem and must land, the passengers must remain on the plane, and on occasions are allowed into the terminal building.
I'm not certain that's actually true. Perhaps in some regressive authoritarian states, but typically the airline would pay for hotels for substantial delays.
There is no objective, it's individuals fleeing from persecution, perhaps with a few seeking a better life. It is not some grand conspiracy - you can remove your tinfoil hat.
The latest poll in The I Paper shows Reform UK on 35% and Labour on 20%. The Prime Minister and other Labour Government ministers and former ministers have made clear that the Labour Government must stop putting asylum seekers in hotels and end the crossings in small boats for the Labour Party to recover support and stop Reform UK winning the next general election and Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister.
The protests in support of asylum seekers are a waste of time. They have not persuaded and will not persuade the general election winning group of voters intending to vote for Reform UK with the aim of stopping the boats and stopping asylum seekers being placed in hotels to change their votes. I expect the Labour Government to take no notice whatsoever of those protesting in support of asylum seekers as Labour politicians know that the only thing that matters is election results.
No Government has ever changed policy as a result of protests. Governments only change policies because of the way people vote and say they intend to vote. The Conservative Party removed Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1990 and scrapped the Poll Tax not because of protests against the Poll Tax but because of byelection losses and the prospect of losing the next general election.
The Prime Minister and other Labour Government ministers and former ministers have made clear that the Labour Government must stop putting asylum seekers in hotels and end the crossings in small boats for the Labour Party to recover support and stop Reform UK winning the next general election and Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister
Has the Prime Minister said that? The article you quote contains the opinion of Charlie Falconer, who has had nothing to do with government since the Blair administration
Has the Prime Minister said that? The article you quote contains the opinion of Charlie Falconer, who has had nothing to do with government since the Blair administration
Keir Starmer will meet German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the UK this week, and will discuss ways to 'go further' on tackling illegal migration following the new returns agreement with France
The PM continued: "We’ll go further to tackle this shared issue together." And he took a brutal swipe at Nigel Farage, claiming the Reform leader will "fade into irrelevance" if progress is made on tackling small boats.
He said: "Farage is terrified of this government succeeding at stopping illegal migration. He doesn’t want the numbers to go down, because he knows that when they do, he’ll fade into irrelevance."
It's nice to see that compassion for fellow human beings is alive and well.
There are quite a few reasons why I would't want to be sent back to a hardline Islamic country. Being LGBQTI+ is one example. Being a woman is another, especially one who is well educated. I also wouldn't fancy having a religion that isn't Islam, or even being a follower of Islam who doesn't follow the stricter interpretations.
Are you quite happy to send people back to be persecuted at best and, in the worst case scenario, killed?
It's quite interesting to see where the 'asylum seekers' are coming from. My assumption is most from countries such as Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, Somalia etc probably have legitimate claims but ones from Pakistan and Bangladesh I'm very dubious about. I doubt the majority of Reform supporters and people further right care about the exact details of asylum policy though.
No Government has ever changed policy as a result of protests. Governments only change policies because of the way people vote and say they intend to vote. The Conservative Party removed Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1990 and scrapped the Poll Tax not because of protests against the Poll Tax but because of byelection losses and the prospect of losing the next general election.
This has happened in other countries, however those protests are much larger and tend to me much more sustained than those seen in the UK. Iceland's response to the banking crisis was largely driven by sustained protests, however given how small the population is, a large protest there can grind the country to a halt really easily; in the UK you would need several million people doing this for over a week to achieve the same result.
Arguably, Reform are the establishment - their policies are all neo liberal in character, continuing decades of handing the country over to private business and shady foreign money, and sucking up to the US. The division of ordinary people into worthy and unworthy groups is nothing new, either - that’s been the status quo for centuries, and a common tactic of those seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of the working class.
You’re absolutely correct, people who have worked all their working age life ( retired at 65) should absolutely enjoy life and enjoy a triple lock state pension, however baby boomers who retired at 50-55 have not fully paid into the system for 30+ plus years of their lives have caused a problem, on top of this ( including the boomers ) there are 9.3 million working age people not working is a massive problem, hence my comment regarding the bulging welfare state bill.
The younger generation don’t seem interested in working, on top of older generations not interested in working and tbh why would they , you get a house / flat paid for , you get receive just as much a month as a working class person on the lower scale of the pay system, where’s the incentive to work?
People are struggling in food banks , people are homeless yet we can afford to spend , millions and millions on hotels , billions on the 9.3 million inactive people. It’s got to stop and not looking at punishing people by upping the retirement age, i wonder if everyone would mind so much if the government said you can no longer get to your private pensions until your 68 , wonder what the reaction would be then ?!
On a side note we also need to look at how much tax the super rich pay ,they could pay more although I do understand that’s probably a fine balance as you don’t want them to pull their money out of the country
Life expectancy for a 65 year old adult has increased significantly.
In 1980 a 65 year old man lived an average of 13.0 more years; in the latest data set its 18.6 years. Those extra 5.6 years of pensions either have to be paid for or mitigated in some way (like extending retirement age)
Why? Why should pensioners' income have any link to wages? If inflation is below 2.5% why should pensions rise by more? It has no impact whatsoever on their quality of life or their spending power. Pensions should increase in line with CPI
I've really tried to refrain from commenting too much on this thread, as it's really a discussion for those with more lived experience than I have, but I'm afraid I can't resist the temptation.
The fact that you think someone should hide their sexuality (which is not exactly a thing they can control) is absurd in my view, but equally unencumbered by truth is your assertion that anybody in that situation would have deliberately "not kept private life private". For instance:
i) They could have had an incriminating social media presence dating from before a regime change/change in the law
ii) They could have been prosecuted/persecuted under dubious grounds e.g. for "looking gay" etc. A regime that persecutes non-straight people is hardly going to be meticulous and just about it! To give you an example, I am straight but am frequently assumed to be gay, for whatever reason. Would it be just to deport someone like me on these dubious grounds?
iii) They could have been outed against their will. Similar to ii) I suppose, but equally possible.
I am not of the view that sex is an inevitable thing in a relationship, as those who have heard my views on pre-marital sex will confirm. But it is not just that someone should be persecuted for an accident of geography. Remember the Biblical tale of the woman who had committed adultery: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Hate the sin, love the sinner, etc. The elements of the far-right that bang on about the country's "Christian heritage" and a return to "Christian principles" would do well to remember this, but that is quite another subject.
This is demonstrably untrue. The National Centre for Social Research, in 2023, reported that 67% of British adults believed that homosexual activity was "not wrong at all".
In 1983, 17% believed that ‘sexual relations between adults of the same sex’ was ‘not wrong at all’, 67% feel that way today. Over the same period the proportion who said same sex relations are ‘always wrong’ has fallen from 50% to just 9%.
Even assuming that this hypothetical asylum seeker is unskilled and arrived on a small boat, according to recent YouGov data, only 38% of British adults would support immediate deportation.
If we recalculate those figures to show them as a proportion of the whole population, rather than just as a proportion of those who support deportations, we can see that the number of Britons who answered that they want deportations AND that this includes small boat asylum seekers stands at the equivalent of 38% of the general public.* Similarly high are the equivalent national figures for those coming to claim benefits (38%) and those coming without work visas to work in unskilled jobs (36%).
Even if we assume that there is no overlap at all between those who say same-sex relationships are "always wrong", and those who say that unskilled asylum seekers should be deported, then only 47% of British adults would support your view, and the "very few" is, in fact, 53% of the population.
It is absurd. On that basis we must provide asylum to all non straight people in non liberal countries, which means we must allow potentially 50 million people UK asylum, no questions asked. This is drifting into silliness.
This is a strawman argument and a fine case of British exceptionalism. You are assuming that every single LGBT person in all of the 72 countries where there are laws restricting non-straight relationships will want to claim asylum in Britain, which is improbable bordering on fantastical. Government figures indicate that the number of asylum applications in which sexual orientation is a factor is about two thousand a year, or 2% of all asylum claims. A drop in the ocean. Much like illegal immigration, which, according to the YouGov data I linked above, is somewhere between 1% and 10% of all immigration to the UK.
In 2023, 2% of asylum claims in the UK (1,377 claims) included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim (LGB asylum applications).
If it does not do that, it needs to be dissolved and replaced and the new state must have the confidence, faith and trust of its people. This is the primary objective of the state.
And do you think the UK has reached this stage? How would you "dissolve and replace" the state, exactly? This sounds worryingly like a coup, and I hope I've misunderstood you.
More absurd British exceptionalism. If we withdraw from the ECHR and the leopards start eating your face, will you complain? To put it slightly less metaphorically, if international law was the only thing protecting you, yourself, from danger, would you still be so keen to cast it aside?
If it wasn't for Brexit, a coherent immigration plan would be far easier to draw up - for instance, co-operation with France. But no. We decided to go it alone because of some blathering about "sovereignty", so let's reap the rewards.
Allowing in large numbers of people with no criminal record checks is a gross failure of national security. When a plane flies over foriegn airpsace, has an engine problem and must land, the passengers must remain on the plane, and on occasions are allowed into the terminal building. The same concept should apply for illegals when entering foreign territory.
This has already been argued against and is really not my specialist subject, but as far as I can tell this offers so solution to the problem whatsoever. This is a rail and transport forum so I presume you already know this, but an aeroplane is very different to a dinghy. One can be catered to on an aeroplane. There are staff there. The same is not true of a dinghy. The only alternative is to put them in a "terminal building" (immigration centre or so on), which is obviously not possible if the infrastructure is not there.
As already pointed out, this is a classic strawman. Nobody on here has argued for "unlimited mass migration". I think immigration levels should be reduced but I also believe that there is a humane way to achieve this.
Every asylum seeker is a person, not a statistic or number. They have husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers. They are not all cheaters or chancers - the majority of them are desperate people with far more worries than you or I will ever have, and in more danger than you or I will ever be, hopefully.
But one day, the UK may, as any nation could, turn into a dangerous, illiberal state. You or I could be in extreme peril with bounties on our heads. It is highly unlikely, I admit. And in that position, where you have to make a choice whether to flee or die, would you be happy being treated as a cheat and a scrounger in your time of need and distress? Do you think you would deserve to be given the cold shoulder by your safe haven, and effectively cast into the boiling sea to drown?
I don't. However much I disagree with your views, I wish you a long and fulfilling life and that such harm never comes your way, as we are fellow humans and children of God, and the same goes for asylum seekers. I believe that values of kindness, compassion, and just basic dignity and humanity are universal.
The above - a triumph for good over bad in its most basic form. It is only "destabilisation of the state" if we insist on taking an insular, isolationist viewpoint (Brexit...) which is not necessary. Again, co-operation with our neighbours and allies would go a long way to solving the problem. But it seems Britain is too proud.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps I've missed it already, but Heathrow Airport is now sponsoring Reform.
This will snowball now, as soon as you have a handful of fairly reputable and major organisations backing you, especially ones that are well known in the British psyche, they'll attract even greater support, and more importantly, finance.
For Heathrow, it probably makes total sense - get a party that seems to help crack down on green policies, allow even greater airport expansion, reduced regulation, reduce employment taxes.
Lounge at Birmingham conference to be hosted by UK biggest airport as Nigel Farage’s party continues to dominate in polling
www.telegraph.co.uk
I do think the rift with Tommy Robinson / Elon Musk will be problematic for Farage - who seem to be promoting Advance UK - this could split the right wing vote to the detriment of both parties.
Heathrow sponsors a lounge at other major parties' conferences as well (Labour, Tory, SNP). It's nothing more than a clickbaity title ,which is unsurprising from the telegraph, to exaggerate Reform's standing with businesses and mjaor enterprises. I can't see the entire article as it is behind a paywall but if it doesn't state the truth that this lounge is there at other conferences then this type of journalism becomes quite dangerous.
You’re absolutely correct, people who have worked all their working age life ( retired at 65) should absolutely enjoy life and enjoy a triple lock state pension, however baby boomers who retired at 50-55 have not fully paid into the system for 30+ plus years of their lives have caused a problem, on top of this ( including the boomers ) there are 9.3 million working age people not working is a massive problem, hence my comment regarding the bulging welfare state bill.
If someone can affford to retire at 50, they likely earned well above the average wage, and therefore probably paid more into the system than someone on minimum wage who works until they are 65.
Heathrow sponsors a lounge at other major parties' conferences as well (Labour, Tory, SNP). It's nothing more than a clickbaity title ,which is unsurprising from the telegraph, to exaggerate Reform's standing with businesses and mjaor enterprises. I can't see the entire article as it is behind a paywall but if it doesn't state the truth that this lounge is there at other conferences then this type of journalism becomes quite dangerous.
It may well be a clickbait title and what you say may well be correct, it probably is - but it simply does not matter. It has succeeded in attracting positive publicity and headlines. It has succeeded also in giving the impression that they are able to court the attention and funding of major, reputable organisations.
Heathrow may as well have come out with their full support for Reform, because in essence, that is how it will be interpreted by everyday voters. The only way to avoid that would have been not to sponsor Reform at all.
. As for Lib Dems not being heard I don't really agree. We had a Lib Dem MSP on Any Questions literally today. Ed Davey got loads of airtime for his ridiculous stunts during the last election - it was his choice to spend his time pretending to fall off paddleboards rather than discussing policy.
Ed Davey did his stunts to get airtime so the media would give coverage to Lib Dem policies eg on water quality that eventually cut through to the electorate. Without those stunts there would have been less coverage of the policy issues.
Lib Dems also did well in the council elections but get proportionately far less coverage.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You’re absolutely correct, people who have worked all their working age life ( retired at 65) should absolutely enjoy life and enjoy a triple lock state pension,
however baby boomers who retired at 50-55 have not fully paid into the system for 30+ plus years of their lives have caused a problem, on top of this ( including the boomers ) #
I agree it's a problem, but to solve problems that involve spending money to fix, and we've been deluded into this modern form of austerity-driven pseudoeconomics.
Could you provide some real facts to substantiate that viewpoint? The vast majority of people I know under the age of 40 are employed, and those that aren't are actively invested in finding suitable employment.
on top of older generations not interested in working and tbh why would they , you get a house / flat paid for , you get receive just as much a month as a working class person on the lower scale of the pay system, where’s the incentive to work?
Holidays, nice things to own, personal fulfilment, though I will agree that the last one is often lacking in lots of roles, that are increasingly stifled by bureaucracy, and an obsessive contextless focus on KPIs.
People are struggling in food banks , people are homeless yet we can afford to spend , millions and millions on hotels , billions on the 9.3 million inactive people. It’s got to stop and not looking at punishing people by upping the retirement age,
It seems to me that you don't really have a good grasp of state level expenditure, how much do you think the bill for these hotels, and how much does it compare to the welfare bill?
i wonder if everyone would mind so much if the government said you can no longer get to your private pensions until your 68 , wonder what the reaction would be th
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.telegraph.co.uk
"Soft touch" is another silly soundbite with no factual basis; the process of claiming asylum is not an easy path, as @ainsworth74 explained to you earlier. 
inews.co.uk
www.theguardian.com
www.mirror.co.uk
