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!
Re. Patel I do tend to 'type through gritted teeth' if that's a thing.. I really struggle with her policies and her approach to, well, everything she does as Home Secretary. It's quite a feat to make Theresa May's prior stint in that role seem reasonable.
Effective opposition to Johnson within the Conservatives is always likely to come from the right. He is trying to blunt that by, for instance, keeping Rees Mogg in his team when he has done just about nothing of use. Keeping Patel in the Home Office means that he is unlikely to be outflanked on home affairs in regards to policy (although, not necessarily, competence). Patel must realise that her chances of climbing any higher (or even staying at the same level) are solely dependent on her doing something about immigration; if she fails, Johnson can point to implementation rather than policy, so nothing to do with him. If the worst comes to the worst he could sack her, I don't believe she has the support among the grass roots that she once had.
I do find it mildly ironic that someone who is clearly descended from an immigrant family (though I know not how far back) is so strongly against, er, immigration.
This to me makes her a rank hypocrite. It sits up there with those who buy a house on a new estate and object when another new estate is built next to it, but worse.
Quite, Patel is an utter hypocrite given her father was an immigrant, yet she appears to, apparently, have an almost-fanatical dislike of immigration.
Even worse is Daniel Kawczynski, who was born in Poland yet is a hard Brexiter, and in doing so is making things more difficult for his countrymen to emigrate to the UK. And he consorted with the (right-wing) Polish government of 2019 to try and block extensions to Brexit, potentially triggering a destabilising 'no deal' scenario. Complete fanatic and perhaps the worst MP in the entire House of Commons for his utter rank hypocrisy.
I suppose one reason why some conservatives want Boris to stay is they know if someone more centrist/left leaning gets the job they no longer will have one and I bet a lot of these right leaning tories can be very "persuading" to any tory wanting to vote against Boris to get them to change their minds.
I doubt there's any real loyalty to Boris it's just whilst he is in power they can effectively do what they want.
It seems to me Boris was given his position in return for getting the right people into the cabinet.. so he's that useful idiot that will be protected by those in the inner circle. That's probably why he can get away with what he does, as long as he does what he's told - which seems necessary because I am not sure he's able to make decisions on his own.
I suppose one reason why some conservatives want Boris to stay is they know if someone more centrist/left leaning gets the job they no longer will have one and I bet a lot of these right leaning tories can be very "persuading" to any tory wanting to vote against Boris to get them to change their minds.
I doubt there's any real loyalty to Boris it's just whilst he is in power they can effectively do what they want.
Actually on economic policy he's very much in the Heath/Wilson/Callaghan mould from the 1970s, a concensus that was smashed by Thatcher. Brexit and the divisive culture war stuff means he looks a lot more right wing than he is.
None as far as I know (certainly not for people currently resident in France).
The principle of "asylum" is those seeking refuge flee the area where their lives or wellbeing are in danger and seek refuge in the nearest safe country they manage to get to. It doesn't give them carte blanche to roam across the globe until they reach the destination of their choice. Those travelling from northern France are not in danger. They are in a safe European country. They simply would prefer to be here instead and in travelling here they are entering the UK illegally (as per Article 31 on the UN Refugee convention).
The situation with these illegal entrants is unsustainable. It is costing enormous sums of money which the country does not have and which must be borrowed and it will eventually cause huge social cohesion problems in a country already beset with such problems in many areas. There is no satisfactory answer to dealing with them once they are here. Sending a handful to Rwanda (if that ever happens and if the reciprocal movements do not outnumber them anyway) is neither here nor there. They must be prevented from landing. If a way isn't devised to achieve that, it will be just one facet of "where it all goes wrong for Johnson and the Tories." And for any other party unable to tackle the problem as well.
Heat sink or not, the fact that the public hate her as much as he does is beside the point. Female. Ethnic minority. Mixed cabinet. Appeal to voters. The heat sink is a fortunate by-product for BJ.
Well this is a surprise ( not) - they are like vampires and crosses when it comes to scrutiny!
BBC: The government will attempt to delay a decision over an investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs about lockdown parties.
MPs were set to vote on Thursday on a Labour plan for a Commons committee to investigate his past comments about Whitehall gatherings.
But ministers now say that vote should wait until probes by the Met Police and civil servant Sue Gray have concluded.
Is she against immigration? Or is she simply against people landing here in large numbers and without leave? People who are termed "asylum seekers" but who, in fact, are simply economic migrants who don't like it too much where they are (i.e. northern France) and who prefer not to use the official channels to enter this country?
She is not against immigration, she is against low skilled immigration: our points-based system will allow an unlimited flow of skilled migrants, which means that Brits will have to compete with them for the highly skilled jobs, and be made to do the more low-skilled jobs. Now if domestic education/training was very good and easily accessible, this wouldn't be a big issue, but I think we need much better improvements in our domestic education for a variety of reasons, including equal opportunity.
Do you believe that every immigrant should support completely unlimited immigration with no restrictions or be labelled a hypocrite?
(Clearly by the way, Priti Patel is not against immigration. She simply believes that it should be managed/restricted to a greater extent than many of her opponents believe)
There is a difference between rhetoric and action, the Government, including Patel, talk plenty about wanting to cut down on it, but actually cutting down on it has hardly happened (except during covid for obvious reasons). Arguably the points-based system being brought in is only restricting low-skilled immigration, it theoretically allows unlimited immigration for migrants with the points needed. Also worth remembering before Brexit that immigration from outside the EU was higher than inside it, despite having more controls. Also, P&O showed us why certain companies like foreign labour, in that they're cheaper and easier to exploit.
My view on immigration is that no-one seems to admit why it's necessary, and thus what it takes to be reduced/controlled. The reason we have high immigration is because we have a pyramid scheme economic model that relies on a continuous increasing supply of people entering at the bottom, working to support those at the top, chiefly retired and/or wealthy people. Domestic birth rates are very low, so we just import people to keep the whole thing going. This is why I think there's a lot of talk to cut immigration, as it's what many seem to want, but why years of saying has not led to years of doing. I think if we change our economic model to something more sustainable, we may not even need to have tough immigration controls, it can be reduced naturally if demand reduces. Put simply, we either choose economic growth and immigration, or no economic growth and no immigration; economic growth and no immigration are mutually exclusive.
That is wrong on at least two counts: Firstly that the 'hostile environment' was aimed only at *illegal immigrants*, not at legitimate immigrants. Supporting the hostile environment does not therefore imply being against immigration per se. And secondly because the hostile environment is not being deliberately applied to Ukrainian refugees. There are certainly many distressing stories about Ukrainians having trouble obtaining visas, but there seems to be ample indication that this is because of administrative problems rather than being a deliberate intention by Government ministers.
The hostile environment may have been aimed at illegal immigrants, but what matters is perception. If many took it to mean opposition to all immigrants, then it was a policy that was either flawed in general or not managed properly to deliver its goals without too much collateral damage.
The Conservatives will try and delay the vote about an investigation into whether Johnson misled MPs as long as possible. When they do finally have to vote they will say, ‘Why is anyone bothering about this? That was long ago.’ (And, yes, I am paraphrasing Ian Hislop.)
Firstly, the fact Patel is herself the daughter of an immigrant does not mean she must hold certain views on immigration. And secondly, I don't perceive her as having a fanatical dislike of immigration, but rather illegal crossings and abuse of the asylum system.
Even worse is Daniel Kawczynski, who was born in Poland yet is a hard Brexiter, and in doing so is making things more difficult for his countrymen to emigrate to the UK. And he consorted with the (right-wing) Polish government of 2019 to try and block extensions to Brexit, potentially triggering a destabilising 'no deal' scenario. Complete fanatic and perhaps the worst MP in the entire House of Commons for his utter rank hypocrisy.
"He's Polish so he has to have certain views". Fancy moving to the UK from a foreign country and retaining your personal agency to form political opinions.
Please attack the points they make based on their merits, not their ethnic or personal background.
The Rwanda thing is deeply unwise because it has "future scandal" written all over it, and vastly benefits Rwanda, which now gets to treat Britain's Tories as a propaganda arm for how wonderful their country is. It is not a bad idea because the minister who implemented it is some sort of ethnic traitor.
The situation with these illegal entrants is unsustainable. It is costing enormous sums of money which the country does not have and which must be borrowed and it will eventually cause huge social cohesion problems in a country already beset with such problems in many areas. There is no satisfactory answer to dealing with them once they are here. Sending a handful to Rwanda (if that ever happens and if the reciprocal movements do not outnumber them anyway) is neither here nor there. They must be prevented from landing. If a way isn't devised to achieve that, it will be just one facet of "where it all goes wrong for Johnson and the Tories." And for any other party unable to tackle the problem as well.
As you point out, (many of them) are immigrants. If we need their skills, the visa system should attract them, and they should not be paying vast sums of money to criminals to reach Britain illegally.
Can't help thinking that if they want to come to the UK badly enough and they think they'll be sent to Rwanda, they'll still pay the people smugglers but disappear into the black economy instead of claiming asylum.
Can't help thinking that if they want to come to the UK badly enough and they think they'll be sent to Rwanda, they'll still pay the people smugglers but disappear into the black economy instead of claiming asylum.
None as far as I know (certainly not for people currently resident in France).
The principle of "asylum" is those seeking refuge flee the area where their lives or wellbeing are in danger and seek refuge in the nearest safe country they manage to get to. It doesn't give them carte blanche to roam across the globe until they reach the destination of their choice. Those travelling from northern France are not in danger. They are in a safe European country. They simply would prefer to be here instead and in travelling here they are entering the UK illegally (as per Article 31 on the UN Refugee convention).
The situation with these illegal entrants is unsustainable. It is costing enormous sums of money which the country does not have and which must be borrowed and it will eventually cause huge social cohesion problems in a country already beset with such problems in many areas. There is no satisfactory answer to dealing with them once they are here. Sending a handful to Rwanda (if that ever happens and if the reciprocal movements do not outnumber them anyway) is neither here nor there. They must be prevented from landing. If a way isn't devised to achieve that, it will be just one facet of "where it all goes wrong for Johnson and the Tories." And for any other party unable to tackle the problem as well.
Article 31 states that they should come here directly, it doesn't mean that they can't travel through another country:
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a
territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article
1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided
they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good
cause for their illegal entry or presence
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such
refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such
restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is
regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The
Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all
the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country
Article 31 is often raised by people concerned about asylum abuse, and
asylum rights defenders, in the context of debates about:
• Whether asylum seekers should claim asylum in the ‘first safe country’
they reach.
• Whether it is illegal for asylum seekers to enter the country clandestinely
or without immigration permission.
• To what extent Article 31 allows for different treatment of asylum seekers
and people granted protection in the UK.
These issues are central to the Government’s recent New Plan for Immigration
policy statement (March 2021), and the related Nationality and Borders Bill
which is currently before Parliament (‘the Bill’).
Various measures in the Bill are intended to incentivise people to claim
asylum in the first safe country they reach, deter irregular travel to the UK
and confine the scope of Article 31(1)’s ‘non-penalisation’ provisions.
Clause 34 of the Bill (as introduced) defines the terms “coming directly” and
“present themselves without delay” used in Article 31(1). This is to clarify the
circumstances in which a person is/isn’t immune from penalties for illegal
entry or presence. Specifically:
• A person will not be considered to have come “directly” to the UK if they
stopped in another country on the way unless they can show that they
could not reasonably be expected to have sought asylum there.
Note that the definition is stopped in another country, not entered another country.
That document does into say that there are 3 ways people gain entry to the UK:
In the 12 months ending September 2019, around 62% of asylum applicants to the UK had entered the country irregularly (40% clandestinely, 22% without relevant documentation) with the remainder largely thought to have arrived regularly, (e.g. on a visa) before subsequently applying for asylum.
As such there's no way to claim asylum unless within the UK, and so someone wishing to do so either does so either by entering through some dubious route or they apply for a visa for some other purpose, gain entry and then claim asylum.
Given that 62% do so through "irregular" entry methods and yet only about 20% of the total are rejected (i.e. at least 2 thirds of those who come here through irregular methods are granted asylum) should be an indication that maybe we need to look again at our system to see if there's a better way to allow people to claim asylum.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In PMQ our great and wonderful PM highlighted that Labour had a similar plan for overseas processing of adylum seekers citing David Blunkett.
Only problem is that Labour were offering a third nation (in that case Tanzania) money to house asylum seekers BEFORE they traveled to the UK, or even very far from where they were fleeing from. That's significantly different to relocating people once they have arrived here.
In doing so it would significantly reduce the need for people to travel (let alone illegally cross the Chanel) and so reduce the risk of harm.
It's the sort of thing which those who are critical of the current Rwanda policy would actual love to happen as it would give people a chance seek asylum without having to (at best) get a visa and then claim asylum once they are here.
It would also significantly reduce costs for all involved (no money to people traffickers and no need for us to pay to house people in the UK, rather in a cheaper location), for instance if we could reduce the cost of housing and supporting those awaiting a response (which is currently running at over £1bn a year; quite a lot of which is because the waiting list for a result from their application is growing due to the numbers getting an answer being about 1/2 the number applying).
Yes it may increase the numbers applying, however it could be done through international cooperation, so rather than applying to a given country they apply for anywhere and those application costs and placements are shared between many nations.
That could allow nations to be able to ask for people with the right skills to fill certain roles. For example if France has a need for something which we don't need and someone applies with those skills they are given a place in France.
Likewise it could allow poorer countries to attract those they need to develop further, when otherwise they could miss out as people would have a desire to go to richer countries.
Firstly, the fact Patel is herself the daughter of an immigrant does not mean she must hold certain views on immigration. And secondly, I don't perceive her as having a fanatical dislike of immigration, but rather illegal crossings and abuse of the asylum system.
I don't think it's just that. Remember how she smiled, almost in a sneering way, when boasting about restricting immigration from the EU at the 2019 Tory conference. She also said something like "And I will end free movement from the EU!" almost as if she was boasting about it. Not nice in my book, but quite the opposite, as if free movement and the opportunity it brings is a bad thing. And her father standing for UKIP is, quite frankly, even worse - given that party's record as an anti-immigration party.
"He's Polish so he has to have certain views". Fancy moving to the UK from a foreign country and retaining your personal agency to form political opinions.
Please attack the points they make based on their merits, not their ethnic or personal background.
I dislike the hypocrisy intensely, given their background I would expect them to have a little more empathy than they do towards immigrants, and want to promote opportunity for people from other countries. Both Patel's parents, and Kawczynski, benefitted from immigration, yet both Patel and Kawczynski enthusiastically promote policies which make life difficult for immigrants. Not an exact analogy, but it would be a bit like a gay MP making homophobic remarks, or, back in 1994, supporting keeping the gay age of consent at 21.
They annoy me in the same way "Boris" and Hancock annoy me for flouting the lockdown laws. The hypocrisy and double standards. I really don't see why criticising politicians for hypocrisy is a bad thing.
"He's Polish so he has to have certain views". Fancy moving to the UK from a foreign country and retaining your personal agency to form political opinions.
Please attack the points they make based on their merits, not their ethnic or personal background.
That sounds a nice idea but it would probably cause some bad side-effects. Most obviously, it will instantly attract large numbers of economic migrants to come to the UK illegally and try their luck claiming asylum, knowing that they have no case for claiming asylum, but figuring that if it means they can work and earn a UK salary for the many months while their claim is being processed, it'll be worth it anyway. Also, it may become harder (and crueller) to remove those who do wish to stay permanently but whose claims are refused, if they've already - thanks to things like being able to work - integrated into the community and then they are suddenly told they have to leave.
And it would be fundamentally unfair too: Why should someone who has entered the UK illegally be allowed to work, when someone who has gone through all the legitimate processes and come here on - say - a 6 month visitor's visa isn't allowed to work.
I would think, better to just work on doing whatever it takes to clear the backlog so that claims are processed more quickly (although I realise that's easier said than done).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That is factually plain wrong. The hostile environment was aimed at *illegal* immigration. It was an attempt to make it much harder for people who have no legal right to be in the UK to do things like work when they weren't entitled to. It had no legal impact on the many immigrants who were here living according to the terms of their visas etc.
And asylum seekers plus EU immigration (both of which she appears to be opposed to, or at least wants to make life difficult for) covers a fair percentage of potential immigration!
That is factually plain wrong. The hostile environment was aimed at *illegal* immigration. It was an attempt to make it much harder for people who have no legal right to be in the UK to do things like work when they weren't entitled to. It had no legal impact on the many immigrants who were here living according to the terms of their visas etc.
As someone whose best friend is a (legal, EU) immigrant, I'm sorry, but that is absolute twaddle. The UK makes all forms of immigration and naturalisation difficult through petty rules and complex bureaucracy. Whether that's the official "Hostile Environment" may be debatable, but it is absolutely a hostile environment, and in some cases (he's done a lot of reading on it) he says it sails very close to the boundaries of breaking international law.
Ukraine is a superb example if you wanted a recent one. Other countries have ensured a smooth process to these people who are running away from war for no fault of their own. The UK? It's embarrassing, frankly.
They are rank hypocrites. "Now we're in, let's make it hard for others to follow".
Oddly enough those who were most opposed to EU immigration in my area were mainly second generation Asians. They were concerned with the sheer numbers and the apparent inability of the UK Government to apply controls.
Oddly enough those who were most opposed to EU immigration in my area were mainly second generation Asians. They were concerned with the sheer numbers and the apparent inability of the UK Government to apply controls.
FWIW I'm not actually opposed to controls, but if someone does "fit the bill" of whatever those might be it should be made very easy and smooth for them to come to the UK.
Absolutely not, whatsoever. Couldn’t disagree more strongly. Immigrants have agency and the ability to form their own opinions. “This policy is worse because the minister is an ethnic minority woman who wouldn’t be here other than for immigration” is straight-up prejudice.
The fact that Patel’s parents immigrated and she was born here and not in Uganda is not even something she can control. It is an unchangeable, unasked-for characteristic, and it should therefore have no bearing on whether we think her policy is good or bad.
I went to a grammar school. Does that mean I should support them in the grammar/no grammar debate, lest I be called a hypocrite?
How banal and reductive to have our opinions dictated as acceptable or otherwise by others simply because of our background.
As someone whose best friend is a (legal, EU) immigrant, I'm sorry, but that is absolute twaddle. The UK makes all forms of immigration and naturalisation difficult through petty rules and complex bureaucracy. Whether that's the official "Hostile Environment" may be debatable, but it is absolutely a hostile environment, and in some cases (he's done a lot of reading on it) he says it sails very close to the boundaries of breaking international law.
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. What I am saying is not 'twaddle'. And I'm not unfamiliar with the immigration bureaucracy - I was married to an immigrant so spent many long hours myself trying to navigate that bureaucracy. And that means I'm also well aware from personal experience of how awful it can be when the bureaucracy goes wrong, so if your friend is experiencing problems, then I do feel for him. On the other hand as a result of knowing many of my (ex) wife's friends, I'm also very well aware of how desperate so many people are to get into the UK for purely economic reasons, and how willing many would-be migrants are to lie or exaggerate or knowingly act illegally in order to circumvent border controls. So I'm afraid the bureaucracy you're complaining about, frustrating though it is, is necessary.
But having said all that, the fact remains that the hostile environment was a specific policy aimed at illegal immigrants.
FWIW I'm not actually opposed to controls, but if someone does "fit the bill" of whatever those might be it should be made very easy and smooth for them to come to the UK.
I could not agree more. Skills/occupational shortage candidates should be given absolute priority regardless of their background or geographical location.
Absolutely not, whatsoever. Couldn’t disagree more strongly. Immigrants have agency and the ability to form their own opinions. “This policy is worse because the minister is an ethnic minority woman who wouldn’t be here other than for immigration” is straight-up prejudice.
They can form their opinions as they wish. And I can form opinions as a result of them, and that opinion is as follows: Priti Patel is an objectionable, rank hypocrite.
My opinion on the policy is not driven by her being involved in it. My opinion on her is driven by the whole package, and an immigrant holding anti-immigration views is a hypocrite*, and I have no time for hypocrites in politics, they only sit one step down from liars. Going back to the subject of the thread, Boris is, of course, both of those things with regard to the COVID rules.
They can form their opinions as they wish. And I can form opinions as a result of them, and that opinion is as follows: Priti Patel is an objectionable, rank hypocrite.
My opinion on her is driven by the whole package, and an immigrant holding anti-immigration views is a hypocrite*, and I have no time for hypocrites in politics, they only sit one step down from liars.
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.
