Current Affairs

[Kendhni]

Ken, we are taking in many thousands of asylum seekers from the refugee camps in all the trouble spots in the world, as well as Afghans, Ukranians and others with family already in the UK. However I suspect that the majority crossing the channel in boats, or in the back of lorries will be economic migrants who will fail the asylum tests but, as I said earlier, will clog up our court and legal aid system for many months while dubious law firms grow fat on our far too "human right" friendly judicial system.

That's what I was saying to Keith, there is very little in what you say that I disagree with, many of your points I have also made.

The problem is not that it is happening, it is our inability to deal with it that is the problem.

No Ken you have said repeatedly that we had closed down all legal routes, which is why we have the problems with the illegal channel crossings. Which is clearly untrue when you look at the annual asylum statistics.

You agree with him and your wrong, you disagree with him your are wrong.

When you look at the stats they actually backs up my statement, the numbers coming across the channel has jumped significantly (or maybe you think Cruella is incorrect when she stated that).
Also, as already stated, the comment was made in the context of criteria set by another poster.
Finally, ask yourself, why are so many willing to risk their lives and those of their families on such a dangerous means of reaching the UK? Especially in the context that the vast majority are eventually granted refugee status.

Which begs the question, how can we believe anything you say when we see clear indications of your incorrect statements?

I would ask why you, of all people, who is well known for making things up, would ask such a crass question ... pot ... kettle ... black.

[Onelife]

We apparently need to be building 340,000 new homes per year in the UK at present. With that sort of shortage there will inevitably be tensions if immigrants, legal or not, get priority over those who have already been waiting for years. That alone is reason enough to get a grip and soon.

This was being discussed on a radio station the other day. One point that one of the commentators made was the growing number of second homes. Such homes tie up stock, lie idle for long periods, limit the ability for local councils and business owners to generate revenue and cause migration to dormitory towns. It was suggested that second homes should be taxed as if populated.

Other suggestions included
- many older tenants, in public housing, are tying up valuable larger family accommodation, even though their families have moved on. Maybe force them to downsize.
- re-designation of many brown and green zones, and denying any complainants that boil down to NIMBY.
- with more WFH there is an opportunity to re-designate some commercial properties as residential

The over-riding argument was It does not have to boil down to building new houses ... possibly just better management of the housing stock we already have.

I don’t know the statistics but I doubt second home ownership would put a dent in the need for new houses. I do however agree that they do force local buyers out of the market. I know that there are some councils that give preference to locals for new house builds…especially in rural areas.

I also think it a good idea to re-designate commercial properties into housing as long as they rejuvenation the vicinity in which they lie.

Their house is their Castle no matter what size it is…so I will put the idea of forcing them out to make room for larger families in the same category as not allowing children to accompany their parents

I agree with you about brown field sites and, in some instances, green field sites being used for housing…. I would start by asking the UK biggest private land owner to donate some of his land… thank you William.

I don’t think any of the suggestions put forward will be enough to fill the need for more housing…I just hope those that are built do so with a Green footprint.

[Kendhni]

I don’t know the statistics but I doubt second home ownership would put a dent in the need for new houses. I do however agree that they do force local buyers out of the market. I know that there are some councils that give preference to locals for new house builds…especially in rural areas.

I can't remember the number (so could be totally off here) but I think the stat mentioned was close to 500,000 second homes in the UK.

I remember reading an article about giving preference to locals for new builds ... the comment several 'locals' made was that the locals could not afford the asking price.

[Kendhni]

Nice one Ben
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ben-wallace-c ... 19178.html

[Ray B]

Moby, slip up, a box of OL chocolates is being arranged for you.

[oldbluefox]

Moby, slip up, a box of OL chocolates is being arranged for you.

What about me? On second thoughts........

[Onelife]

I don’t know the statistics but I doubt second home ownership would put a dent in the need for new houses. I do however agree that they do force local buyers out of the market. I know that there are some councils that give preference to locals for new house builds…especially in rural areas.

I can't remember the number (so could be totally off here) but I think the stat mentioned was close to 500,000 second homes in the UK.

I remember reading an article about giving preference to locals for new builds ... the comment several 'locals' made was that the locals could not afford the asking price.

I didn’t know they weren’t being taxed but I can see a case being made for taxing them as if they were populated. I can also see a case for a surcharge increase on future second home purchases.

I was thinking more along the line of local first-time purchases with part ownership options. I may be wrong but I think councils stipulated these conditions at the planning application stage.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Even if it was democratically acceptable to force out second home owners, if there are 500,000 of them and we need 340,000 new homes per year that solves the problem for only a year and a half. If they're in the right place. A harbourside cottage in Cornwall isn't much use to a worker in Birmingham. Forcing older people to downsize doesn't alter the number of houses in the stock, just the mix of sizes. And they may well be out of the price range of those who need them.

My inclination is that we need the modern equivalent of the post war pre-fab building programme for social rent or part ownership. But in the current economic situation where does the start up funding come from?

[Kendhni]

My inclination is that we need the modern equivalent of the post war pre-fab building programme for social rent or part ownership. But in the current economic situation where does the start up funding come from?

There are 2 such developments within a few miles from us ... we call them tin can alley .. both very well kept and maintained.

Obviously something needs to be done, but because there are no simple answers we seem to have got ourselves caught up in a paralysis by analysis ... so nothing (worthwhile) gets done.

[Onelife]

Depending on your view point I thought this made a good read…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... ble-truth/

[Kendhni]

I read an article a while back that said all buildings in the UK cover less than 1.5% of the land mass.
I know it is a meaningless statistic but still a lot lower than I would have thought, had I been asked to guess.

[Kendhni]

Depending on your view point I thought this made a good read…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... ble-truth/

it was interesting, albeit somewhat sensationalist in places, and I would like to see a written rebuttal to some of the claims made.

Personally, I think the real uncomfortable truth is that Cruella's need to resort to hyperbole is purely down to the fact that she, and the government, know they have no answer to the problem. I remember when Cameron complained about the levels of immigration the response he got was along the lines of 'Why do you not enforce the laws available to you?' ... that has always made me think there is a bigger picture going on that we may not be privy too.

Maybe all contributors need to rethink and modernise the 1951 convention (it was not written for todays circumstances)?

[towny44]

I read an article a while back that said all buildings in the UK cover less than 1.5% of the land mass.
I know it is a meaningless statistic but still a lot lower than I would have thought, had I been asked to guess.

Assuming roads don't count as buildings, there is probably far more covered with tarmac and pavement, and probably more still covered by water.

[Onelife]

Depending on your view point I thought this made a good read…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... ble-truth/

it was interesting, albeit somewhat sensationalist in places, and I would like to see a written rebuttal to some of the claims made.

Personally, I think the real uncomfortable truth is that Cruella's need to resort to hyperbole is purely down to the fact that she, and the government, know they have no answer to the problem. I remember when Cameron complained about the levels of immigration the response he got was along the lines of 'Why do you not enforce the laws available to you?' ... that has always made me think there is a bigger picture going on that we may not be privy too.

Maybe all contributors need to rethink and modernise the 1951 convention (it was not written for todays circumstances)?

The answers are as she has suggested, it’s just that the political motivation for doing so lacks the support of those who enjoy banging out the phrase… “the government, know they have no answer to the problem” At some point they are going to have to face up to the fact that if we don’t send them back, they will keep coming. There is no solution once they breach our shores, we either accept them or we turn the tide and send them back.

We are a relatively small island that is struggling to support its own citizens let alone make room for tens of thousands more that will need supporting.

It’s a cruel world we have created isn’t?

[Kendhni]

I read an article a while back that said all buildings in the UK cover less than 1.5% of the land mass.
I know it is a meaningless statistic but still a lot lower than I would have thought, had I been asked to guess.

Assuming roads don't count as buildings, there is probably far more covered with tarmac and pavement, and probably more still covered by water.

That would be correct. I had a quick search and found the article (can't believe it was 5 years ago I read it)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

Another interesting comparison is that "Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out."

[Kendhni]

Depending on your view point I thought this made a good read…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... ble-truth/

it was interesting, albeit somewhat sensationalist in places, and I would like to see a written rebuttal to some of the claims made.

Personally, I think the real uncomfortable truth is that Cruella's need to resort to hyperbole is purely down to the fact that she, and the government, know they have no answer to the problem. I remember when Cameron complained about the levels of immigration the response he got was along the lines of 'Why do you not enforce the laws available to you?' ... that has always made me think there is a bigger picture going on that we may not be privy too.

Maybe all contributors need to rethink and modernise the 1951 convention (it was not written for todays circumstances)?

The answers are as she has suggested, it’s just that the political motivation for doing so lacks the support of those who enjoy banging out the phrase… “the government, know they have no answer to the problem” At some point they are going to have to face up to the fact that if we don’t send them back, they will keep coming. There is no solution once they breach our shores, we either accept them or we turn the tide and send them back.

Maybe if those tasked with dealing with the issue would stop ranting about jonny foreigner invading their precious lands, and coming up with more and more preposterous ideas, then others would not have to try to hold them accountable for what their manifesto said they would do.

A reliance on 'sending them back' will not solve the problem, it will just mean we have to continually spend hundreds of millions dealing with it ... and probably they will be back on our shores before their plane arrives back in this country. The real solution is to resolve the underlying issues as to why people are emigrating (and I am not talking about the Daily Fail garbage about them all seeking benefits). I don't think the government or people could stomach more money being sent overseas to boost economies, living standards and political situation elsewhere in the world.

We are a relatively small island that is struggling to support its own citizens let alone make room for tens of thousands more that will need supporting.

Yet you have already conceded the point that we need tens of thousands immigrants to boost the workforce, doctors, nurses, engineers etc.
However, as before, I agree there is a problem that needs a resolution .. but the continual policy failures and the spending of hundreds of millions on failed ideas is just a potemkin village hiding the fact the government has totally lost control of the situation.


Or maybe as suggested on GMB this morning, Sunak is taking a leaf out of the Johnson playbook and deliberately using immigration as a diversion from the cost of living crisis ... and him having to scurry along to COP27 for fear of Johnson taking his limelight.

[david63]

One point that seems to be being overlooked where "illegal" immigration/asylum seeking is concerned is that for any non EU migrants the start of the problem is when they enter an EU country illegally - in other words it is the EU that are not protecting their borders and we end up at the end of the road (literally) picking up the pieces.

Also as these migrants are coming across the channel illegally then shouldn't the French be more proactive in stopping it - after all the initial crime is taking place in France Stop the people traffickers and our migrant problem reduces overnight.

[Kendhni]

One point that seems to be being overlooked where "illegal" immigration/asylum seeking is concerned is that for any non EU migrants the start of the problem is when they enter an EU country illegally - in other words it is the EU that are not protecting their borders and we end up at the end of the road (literally) picking up the pieces.

You need to split 'illegal immigration' out from those seeking asylum ... they are not one and the same.

'Illegal immigrant' - arguably there is no such thing until they reach the target country, at which point they may be deemed to be 'illegal' but up until then they are just 'migrants'. Passing through a country does not make them 'illegal'.
'Asylum seeker' - protected under 1951 convention of which the UK is a signatory ... those seeking asylum are free to move through any other country signed up to the 1951 convention. The Dublin agreement did say that once they have sought asylum in one country, then they can be returned to that country if they seek asylum in another ... however the UK has opted out of the Dublin agreement and did not enforce it when we were bound by it.

The bigger question I would ask is how come EU states are (generally) able to reject the majority whereas the UK accepts the majority.

Also as these migrants are coming across the channel illegally then shouldn't the French be more proactive in stopping it - after all the initial crime is taking place in France Stop the people traffickers and our migrant problem reduces overnight.

The UK does pay France to help police its borders ... for that the French intercept about 70% of the attempted crossings and report many others to the british coast guard, however it is impossible to police an entire exit-point shoreline 24/7.

Saying "Stop the people traffickers and our migrant problem reduces overnight" is like saying "Stop the drug traffickers and our drug problem reduces overnight" ... it is not that simple.

[towny44]

One point that seems to be being overlooked where "illegal" immigration/asylum seeking is concerned is that for any non EU migrants the start of the problem is when they enter an EU country illegally - in other words it is the EU that are not protecting their borders and we end up at the end of the road (literally) picking up the pieces.

You need to split 'illegal immigration' out from those seeking asylum ... they are not one and the same.

'Illegal immigrant' - arguably there is no such thing until they reach the target country, at which point they may be deemed to be 'illegal' but up until then they are just 'migrants'. Passing through a country does not make them 'illegal'.
'Asylum seeker' - protected under 1951 convention of which the UK is a signatory ... those seeking asylum are free to move through any other country signed up to the 1951 convention. The Dublin agreement did say that once they have sought asylum in one country, then they can be returned to that country if they seek asylum in another ... however the UK has opted out of the Dublin agreement and did not enforce it when we were bound by it.

The bigger question I would ask is how come EU states are (generally) able to reject the majority whereas the UK accepts the majority.

Also as these migrants are coming across the channel illegally then shouldn't the French be more proactive in stopping it - after all the initial crime is taking place in France Stop the people traffickers and our migrant problem reduces overnight.

The UK does pay France to help police its borders ... for that the French intercept about 70% of the attempted crossings and report many others to the british coast guard, however it is impossible to police an entire exit-point shoreline 24/7.

Saying "Stop the people traffickers and our migrant problem reduces overnight" is like saying "Stop the drug traffickers and our drug problem reduces overnight" ... it is not that simple.

Ken, you are as usual very good at saying what the govt should not be doing, but not so clever at coming up with a viable solution.
Yes we know that some of those crossing the channel will be genuine asylum seekers, I would argue that many of them especially those coming from Africa will be economic migrants.
You do touch on a point that could be valid, if in fact most asylum seekers are rejected by other countries, then it would suggest that our legal system is far more sympathetic to these migrants than the EU countries. Some research on whether this is true and why would be very useful to help us frame our legislation in a better way to avoid leaving loopholes that greedy lawyers can exploit.
Of course there could be another way which might suit the green agenda. Should we be continually seeking to grow our economy so that some can enjoy a much better lifestyle
Why not a population cap coupled with far better attempts to pull the poorest out of poverty so that they can with technologies help contribute more to the economy, which would then see everyone benefit from any increase in our economy. Just a wild idea.

[Kendhni]

Ken, you are as usual very good at saying what the govt should not be doing, but not so clever at coming up with a viable solution.

Do you really need to continually snipe rather than discuss? As you will find out, you identified at least 2 of the 'solutions' (not necessarily 'viable') I put forward within your response.

I have never claimed to have a solution, but what we do know is the government (those tasked with handling this piece of work) is getting more and more desperate with, quite frankly, dumber and dumber ideas that are costing us millions with no verifiable benefit. We also know that the use of inflammatory language, by a member of government (that should know better), is not going to resolve the problem ... all that does is stir up the little englander (or worse) mentality.

Yes we know that some of those crossing the channel will be genuine asylum seekers, I would argue that many of them especially those coming from Africa will be economic migrants.

Depends on your definition of 'economic migrant' ... it could be argued they are all economic migrants in that they are trying to improve their lives, that does not preclude them from also being persecuted.

You do touch on a point that could be valid, if in fact most asylum seekers are rejected by other countries, then it would suggest that our legal system is far more sympathetic to these migrants than the EU countries. Some research on whether this is true and why would be very useful to help us frame our legislation in a better way to avoid leaving loopholes that greedy lawyers can exploit.

So contrary to your opening statement, I have made a suggestion that you think may be 'valid'. Considering our legal system follows the same/similar rules as our European neighbours, I am not convinced that it is our laws that are the problem, it is how we in the UK are choosing to interpret them that is the problem. So yes, we should be looking at how other countries are choosing to interpret their laws. The EU even told us to enforce the laws available to us (when Cameron went to them about immigration).
The bit about 'loopholes' and 'greedy lawyers' is just weak rhetoric trying to avoid seeking genuine answers to the problem.

Of course there could be another way which might suit the green agenda. Should we be continually seeking to grow our economy so that some can enjoy a much better lifestyle
Why not a population cap coupled with far better attempts to pull the poorest out of poverty so that they can with technologies help contribute more to the economy, which would then see everyone benefit from any increase in our economy. Just a wild idea.

If, during a time of economic crises, you can sell the idea that we should triple/quadruple our international aid budget and, rather than invest in the UK, we should be investing overseas then I say ... go for it! However, despite being a possible long term solution, as I have already stated (in reference to such a solution) I don't think the government or public would stomach it.

[Manoverboard]

They start from a very low base John.
If my house went up by 40% it would cost well over a million.

Chums in the village purchased their house at £415,000 the day prior to lockdown, it has just been sold for £575,000 ... which is circa 40% is it not ?

[towny44]

Ken, you are as usual very good at saying what the govt should not be doing, but not so clever at coming up with a viable solution.

Do you really need to continually snipe rather than discuss? As you will find out, you identified at least 2 of the 'solutions' (not necessarily 'viable') I put forward within your response.

I have never claimed to have a solution, but what we do know is the government (those tasked with handling this piece of work) is getting more and more desperate with, quite frankly, dumber and dumber ideas that are costing us millions with no verifiable benefit. We also know that the use of inflammatory language, by a member of government (that should know better), is not going to resolve the problem ... all that does is stir up the little englander (or worse) mentality.

Yes we know that some of those crossing the channel will be genuine asylum seekers, I would argue that many of them especially those coming from Africa will be economic migrants.

Depends on your definition of 'economic migrant' ... it could be argued they are all economic migrants in that they are trying to improve their lives, that does not preclude them from also being persecuted.

You do touch on a point that could be valid, if in fact most asylum seekers are rejected by other countries, then it would suggest that our legal system is far more sympathetic to these migrants than the EU countries. Some research on whether this is true and why would be very useful to help us frame our legislation in a better way to avoid leaving loopholes that greedy lawyers can exploit.

So contrary to your opening statement, I have made a suggestion that you think may be 'valid'. Considering our legal system follows the same/similar rules as our European neighbours, I am not convinced that it is our laws that are the problem, it is how we in the UK are choosing to interpret them that is the problem. So yes, we should be looking at how other countries are choosing to interpret their laws. The EU even told us to enforce the laws available to us (when Cameron went to them about immigration).
The bit about 'loopholes' and 'greedy lawyers' is just weak rhetoric trying to avoid seeking genuine answers to the problem.

Of course there could be another way which might suit the green agenda. Should we be continually seeking to grow our economy so that some can enjoy a much better lifestyle
Why not a population cap coupled with far better attempts to pull the poorest out of poverty so that they can with technologies help contribute more to the economy, which would then see everyone benefit from any increase in our economy. Just a wild idea.

If, during a time of economic crises, you can sell the idea that we should triple/quadruple our international aid budget and, rather than invest in the UK, we should be investing overseas then I say ... go for it! However, despite being a possible long term solution, as I have already stated (in reference to such a solution) I don't think the government or public would stomach it.

You misunderstand my last point, I was only suggesting we attempt to pull the UKs poorest out of poverty, as you keep telling us the UK is no longer a world leader so let's leave it to someone else to solve the third world poverty.

[screwy]

There was guy on telly this morning,came here 4 yrs ago,not sure from where but let’s say the Middle East,just a guess. He works as a Vet. He now isn’t happy with Inflation and mortgage rates and is looking to leave.! Guess the UK isn’t the land of milk and honey.

[barney]

I think that there should be a small amount of taxpayer money, ring fenced for overseas emergencies.
That’s it.
The government has no right spending U.K. taxpayer money on aid projects in other countries.
We have obligations to the British Overseas Territories and the other three U.K. nations.
I don’t feel that we have obligations to former colonies.
They have had generations to sort themselves out, as most have.
Why we are giving financial aid to countries with Space programs and nuclear programs is beyond logic.

[Onelife]

Hi Ken…if we both concede that, we don’t have the answers then perhaps we can move this topic to a place where we ask ourselves how will these immigrants integrate into our society. For that I would just say this… apart from those who come here through appropriate channels, with the skills that are needed, immigration has otherwise Imo been a complete disaster for our country. It’s ironic that those who feel they need to flee their birth countries through reasons such as their ethnicity, religion, race, politics, better life choice or cultural beliefs do so knowing we in the UK tolerate all of the above to the extent that many cities across the country have now become enclaves of those who wish to retain these ethnicity, religion, race, politics and cultural beliefs, this ultimately provokes the questions surrounding the lack of integration and the growing resentment that immigration has on the indigenous population of the UK.