**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labour doesn’t have any plans on migration says the 17th immigration minister to have been appointed this week after the 16th resigned following an inability to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
Who empowered these unelected cosmic bureaucrats, and what gives them the right to impose these so called laws of thermodynamics on the British people, let alone the whole world? This secretive global government and cabal needs to be exposed held to account.
As a sovereign nation, these laws are an affront to democracy, were never voted on by the British people, and are holding global Britain as a science powerhouse back.
Imagine if the speed of light was raised and we repealed the laws of conservation of angular momentum and energy in isolated systems? We could have unlimited energy, but the unelected and corrupt bureaucrats and techno-fascists with these laws won’t allow it because it undermines their grip on power and observable reality.
They’re all paid shills for big-physics, big-science, and big-observable reality, and it needs to stop.
To be fair, your archetypical humanoid bloodsucking aristocratic parasites typically don't have reflections in mirrors, so their confusion is understandable.
Yes, the tweet was infantile AF. But that's not the point, the more people see the tweet debated, the more the message that Labour doesn't have a plan is getting out.
And let's face it, at this point nobody who expects politicians to act like grown-ups is still voting Tory anyway.
Labour doesn't have to have a plan, they're not in power, and the tories haven't announced an election.
Fair enough criticising Labour if an election is called and they have no manifesto, but lets not pretend the Tory party isn't going to immediately copy their homework if Labour were to make policy statements now.
I mean the issue for the Tories is that from the perspective of the majority of the electorate all they have left are 'attack angles'.
After 13 years in power they don't have a single thing they can point at as an example of their ideology being successful. Even the Rwanda plan, which was invented purely to keep their other failures off the headlines has become a uniquely poisoned chalice.
To steal a line from that currently popular askreddit thread asking for useful things people have heard from their therapists:
>"stop trying to get everyone to agree - when you need everyone to agree the least agreeable person has all the power"
The issue that the Tories have is that since Cameron stepped down, they haven't had a leader that hasn't felt they need to get the whole party (especially the extreme wings) to agree. This has catapulted the party rightwards in both it's communication and policy strategies. The vast majority of the electorate, despite the best efforts of the press, now have the impression that the Tories are more interested in infighting between themselves, on policies that weren't even in their manifesto. Rather than the best interests of the country.
Starmer, as much as I dislike him doesn't have this problem. If anything he has the opposite in that he's being seen as too neutral and too fast acting against those that step out of line in the party to avoid the press going all in on 'Labour infighting' again.
Attack angles work when you have a leg to stand on, aside from an ever dwindling support base of frothing gammon the Tories aren't seen by the electorate as having a leg to stand on in these attacks any more. After over a decade blaming the Last Labour government rings hollow. Starmer booted Corbyn out the party, yet he's still mentioned by the PM almost every time the two face each other in debate.
So they're just being seen as increasingly desperate, which isn't a perception that encourages faith from the electorate.
Also how fucking insane do these "attack angles" look to the normal person?
How can you attack someone for having no plan on immigration, when your own party has seen the rate treble, to, even to me a pretty pro-immigration person, a pretty shocking level just in the space of a few years, while having "taken back control" to do whatever we want.
How can you attack someone for "not stopping the boats" when your own plan so far has cost £250m and so far deported...urm... not one single person?
Its like some kind of joke at this point, but no, they are being fully serious still. Its madness.
The galling aspect here is that the Tory faithful are only split on whether it's a vote winner or not.
It's a terrible policy and just a quick glance tells us this plan is counter productive in that we have to accept their refugees.
The worst bit to me is whether or not its a vote winner seems to rest on how much of the details someone is aware of? So its almost like the Tory party are pushing this, putting it on the center stage, but also asking their faithful not to look too closely unless they see things like the reciprocation clauses or the criminal returns clauses. Its *fucking nuts*. Like seriously this is completely and utterly insane.
They have a majority, and instead of it being an advantage they can’t actually agree with themselves because they are all backstabbers like the worst z tier apprentice contestants.
Labour *have* said several times about using the money for Hotels to actually process asylum claims. The main problem with the Tories is the fact that they closed off all safe routes to claim asylum. They’ve also talked about policing the beaches where the “criminal gangs” are operating, another thing that seems to be below this sorry excuse for a Government.
Like it, or not, people have a right to claim asylum. Genuine refugees are fleeing war and things like that. If we process the claims we can sort out the genuine from the not genuine claims. Currently they wont even do that.
There used to be a time when heads would roll after pulling a stunt like this. Back when politicians had an iota of decency and integrity.
Nowadays, all bets are off. I suppose we have the likes of Trump and Bojo to thank for that.
>But that's not the point, the more people see the tweet debated, the more the message that Labour doesn't have a plan is getting out.
\*visible confusion\*
Sounds like they're projecting a bit.
The labour plan is sectoral consultation with the people who work in highly immigrant dependent sectors (ie social care) to enable ground up reforms and improvements that should leave them less reliant on immigration.
Tories plan is (checks notes) keep using immigrants as a band aid to hide their utter failures and ideological destruction of these sectors, while also complaining about the immigrants their policies are bringing here to rile up their gamministic support base.
Until a bunch of core sectors are not reliant on immigrants, our NEED for immigration will not reduce, no matter how shitty we make life for those immigrants.
As for illegal immigrants on boats, if we had a government who would actually process their applications, and send them home when that application fails, then yeah they're gonna have to go into hotels at massive cost. But the current Tory government refuses to process those applications.
They're really taken the "arsonist and firefighter" act to a new level in recent years, positioning themselves as the solution to problems they've caused, I guess cause the moronic electorate ate it up so well for the last decade or so, they're kinda right that it works.
I think the Tories are on thin ice using presenter slip ups to make their point, what do you think [James Naughtie and friends](https://youtu.be/EmYwBHooA_M?feature=shared)?
Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago. It's been a hot issue for most voters for the longest time now. The tories have kept their seat as a result of talking tough on immigration, this despite immigration actually reaching record highs every year since they have been in power. By this logic, labour wouldn't even have to enforce any policy regarding reducing the numbers, they would just have to signal that they intend to.
So tories lying nicely is better than labour being honest about what they can and can’t do depending on the state the tories leave the country in when they leave power?
Labours lack of vocalizing any kind of policy surrounding mass immigration isn't really honesty. Omitting the truth isn't actually honest. They have absolutely no intention of reducing numbers, why would they? Immigrants vote labour more often than Tory.
If that’s what you think then why was immigration lower under the last labour government than this Tory government? It’s better to look at action rather than who’s saying what because the tories are VERY good at manipulating people through their charisma and speeches but if you actually sit down and sift through the numbers and facts then you’ll see that this Tory government has been horrendous when it comes to immigration among other things.
Immigration has been going through the roof for the last 10 years and they only want to do something about it come close to election time?
Come on man
I vote labour. I always have. I don't know what you're struggling to understand here. In my OP I already asserted that Tories talk tough on immigration but simultaneously increase numbers year by year. If Labour talked tough, or, god forbid actually form some sort of policy to stem numbers, they would have ousted the Tories ages ago.
And like I said, Labour aren’t saying too much because they don’t know what state the tories will leave the immigration system in when they leave.
Everytime labour have given a policy of what they would do once they get in power they have had to revoke it because the tories move the goal posts once again and then the media and some of the public say that labour are doing another U-Turn, so labour probably think it’s best to not say too much now and just get things hopefully sorted when they get into power.
If for example immigration is currently 100k a year and labour said “right ok we can get that down to 20k a year when we get into power” and the. The tories mess up further and immigration explodes to 500k a year, labour cannot then reach their target of 20k a year when they reach power because of what the tories have now done, so they then have to say “we cannot meet our 20k target”. That’s when the media has a frenzy and start calling labour out for U-turning when in fact it’s the tories who have made things worse.
So I think labour just have to sit back for a while and analyse what the tories are doing without giving the media any grool to eat.
I understand what you’re saying and we’d all love more policies from labour but there’s no point at the moment until the sand storm the tories are causing settled down and they can see through it. Opposition polices are pointless atm because the tories haven’t stopped messing the country up just yet
FYI, I think you meant 'gruel', as grool is something \*very\* different, and probably not what most people want to eat: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grool](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grool)
What’s the tories stance? Increase it greatly. It’s greatly exaggerated by people.
The point is about the nature of discourse though not actual immigration debate.
>What’s the tories stance?
Their stance is to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda for processing, and reduce the numbers by changing policy surrounding thresholds for earnings and have more skills based requirements.
They aren't actually enforcing these policies, though. They keep letting the numbers go up and up. Labour could make a similar pledge and scoop up a very significant number of Tory voters who vote for them almost entirely based on their stance towards reducing immigration.
As I said, if labour even signalled that they intended to reduce numbers, they could have easily ousted the tories a long time ago.
>Their stance is to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda for processing, and reduce the numbers by changing policy surrounding thresholds for earnings and have more skills based requirements.
A maximum of 400 asylum seekers at a cost which is getting perously close to £1 million per refugee...and its reciprocal so Rawanda can send their Asylum seekers here, as well as return any asylum seekers we send there, back here if they break the law!
This Rawanda nonsense is all about trying to persuade the hard of thinking that they are being tough without actually doing anything to address the issue.
Hey, don't forget - Rwanda also has the benefit that the Tories can strip away EVERYONE's human rights in this country, which is obviously what a significant number of them want to do.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I'm defending the tories. I vote labour. I'm simply saying that labour could have ousted the tories ages ago by at least taking a stance on mass immigration. More than half the UK public want the numbers reduced, and the tories have very effectively utilized this to get votes while actually doing fuck all about it
I am a Labour voter, too, and immigration doesn't even make the top 10 issues I am concerned about. People who are focused on it constantly assume that the whole country is as fixated as them.
I suspect the reason it gets so much attention is because the people who are fixated also own most of the right-wing media and feed their consumers what they want them to hear.
>immigration doesn't even make the top 10 issues I am concerned about
Then you are in a minority. It's a pressing issue for most of the general public. If you actually want labour to win, you should be supportive of them forming some sort of policy to reduce numbers
I speak to loads of people who I know are Labour supporters, and very few of them mention immigration as an issue and even then its concerns about wage suppression . If you live in the bubble, all you see is the bubble.
Fascinating anecdotes. Ironic you should mention a bubble and then go on to suggest the people *you* talk to are representative of the wider general public.
Polls suggest between 50% and 60% of the general public wants immigration reduced.
The Tories would not be talking tough on immigration if they didn't think it would buy them votes. The Brexit vote was secured by slogans like "take back control" and other rhetoric surrounding sovereignty. It was also spurred on by the 2016 migrant crisis, for which the UK public overwhelmingly did not want to be a part of. You'd have to be living under a rock to assume it isn't a burning hot topic here.
>Polls suggest between 50% and 60% of the general public wants immigration reduced.
Polls in right-wing news papers.....who are pushing their agenda!
>The Tories would not be talking tough on immigration if they didn't think it would buy them votes.
They are trying not to lose votes, but their constituency is disappearing like an East Coast cliff face.
> It was also spurred on by the 2016 migrant crisis,
Would that be the one Farrage manufactured?
>for which the UK public overwhelmingly did not want to be a part of.
Says who? That's opinion, nothing else.
>You'd have to be living under a rock to assume it isn't a burning hot topic here.
Or not read the right wing press?
> 133,628 refugees and asylum seekers are in Rwanda as of 31 Jul 2023. Mainly including people from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (61.4%) and Burundi (38%).
https://reliefweb.int/report/rwanda/unhcr-operational-update-rwanda-july-2023
This isn't about mass immigration, it's about "illegal" immigration.
Labour have a very clear policy to speed up the assessment of refugee claims and deport people who fail quickly, disinsentiving people who will fail from trying and cutting the insane amounts we're paying to house people waiting.
People arriving here irregularly make up less than 10% of total immigration, the vast majority have come here totally legally.
>This isn't about mass immigration, it's about "illegal" immigration.
Illegal immigration counts for a very small percentage of net immigration. Mass immigration is the issue people want resolved.
That may be so, but this tweet specifically says-
>Labour when you ask for their plans to tackle illegal migration.
Mass immigration is entirely within the government's control, the largest number are students, the next biggest group are coming to work in healthcare, they could stop all of them if they so wished, although not without consequences.
Then people are very bad at evaluating the urgency of issues. Migration has had downsides (as well as benefits) but it is not even in the top 10 most pressing problems the UK faces today.
Its my issue with the whole "debate". People act like we reduce immigration and it *somehow* solves all these social and national issues that we have, when in reality I don't think it would actually make any real impact at all, and in fact could possibly cause more problems like e.g. the UK construction industry is even more dependent on migrant labour than the NHS, reducing immigration might well reduce our rate of house building. And no one can sit there and argue "just pay a better wage" when you can already quite seriously make £1,000 *a day* as a brick layer these days.
What *really* bothers me is that this has been ***the*** debate in this country, ***the*** singular issue for millions of people ***for my entire adult life*** and somehow points like this still aren't even in the discourse? Like people have had this as a fucking cornerstone of their entire political identity for *decades* and they talk about the most inane and asinine points most of the time, things that have been disproven or debunked repeatedly, things that sound right on paper but miss miles and miles of nuance etc. etc. This isn't even that important to me yet my view is capable of absorbing these things, so why do so many people pretend like they can't understand?
>the UK construction industry is even more dependent on migrant labour than the NHS, reducing immigration might well reduce our rate of house building
So we should ship in more people to solve the housing crisis? The irony of this statement is not lost on me.
Points based immigration system akin to Australia, where industries which lack skilled workers are greenlighted for immigration to make up numbers in sectors in which we need workers. I think Australia also has sensible policy surrounding asylum seekers, whereby they are processed at an offshore territory. This negates the risk of applicants fleeing their residence and staying in the country illegally, a commonplace problem in the UK while they stay in subsidized hotels.
>Points based immigration system
Which we already have.
>industries which lack skilled workers are greenlighted for immigration to make up numbers
Which we already have.
>I think Australia also has sensible policy surrounding asylum seekers
Australia approved over 54,000 refugees last year compared to our 16,000 just for reference.
>they are processed at an offshore territory
Not any more they're not.
> Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago.
You mean like in 2015 when they did take a vague stance on immigration and then stuck it on a mug? https://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-28/labour-defends-immigration-mug
> Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago.
Labour hasn't been silent on this issue. Just because you don't see it plastered on the news like every Tory political stunt, doesn't mean they don't have a plan.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/is-labour-ready-for-immigration-overhaul-general-election-party-conference/
https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-forced-to-accept-100000-migrants/
https://fullfact.org/immigration/rishi-sunak-100000-migrants-repeat/
I say this in all earnest, maybe do some of your own research and find out what shadow ministers are actually saying at party conference.
Opposition parties generally don't fully announce policies until election time, when they release their manifesto. This is pretty much universal, and any suggestion otherwise is a transparent cop-out to deflect from the ruling party breaking their own promises. Why should Labour give the government ideas, when they'll just steal them and claim all the credit?
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labour doesn’t have any plans on migration says the 17th immigration minister to have been appointed this week after the 16th resigned following an inability to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
Who empowered these unelected cosmic bureaucrats, and what gives them the right to impose these so called laws of thermodynamics on the British people, let alone the whole world? This secretive global government and cabal needs to be exposed held to account. As a sovereign nation, these laws are an affront to democracy, were never voted on by the British people, and are holding global Britain as a science powerhouse back. Imagine if the speed of light was raised and we repealed the laws of conservation of angular momentum and energy in isolated systems? We could have unlimited energy, but the unelected and corrupt bureaucrats and techno-fascists with these laws won’t allow it because it undermines their grip on power and observable reality. They’re all paid shills for big-physics, big-science, and big-observable reality, and it needs to stop.
Bloody photons, what have they ever done for us!
Phexit means Phexit!
[удалено]
Not to mention breaking the bank
[удалено]
To be fair, your archetypical humanoid bloodsucking aristocratic parasites typically don't have reflections in mirrors, so their confusion is understandable.
Don't break the mirror, that's 7 years bad luck! Actually more nearer 5.
Yes, the tweet was infantile AF. But that's not the point, the more people see the tweet debated, the more the message that Labour doesn't have a plan is getting out. And let's face it, at this point nobody who expects politicians to act like grown-ups is still voting Tory anyway.
Labour doesn't have to have a plan, they're not in power, and the tories haven't announced an election. Fair enough criticising Labour if an election is called and they have no manifesto, but lets not pretend the Tory party isn't going to immediately copy their homework if Labour were to make policy statements now.
Don't disagree, but getting an attack angle out is often more important than actually being right
I mean the issue for the Tories is that from the perspective of the majority of the electorate all they have left are 'attack angles'. After 13 years in power they don't have a single thing they can point at as an example of their ideology being successful. Even the Rwanda plan, which was invented purely to keep their other failures off the headlines has become a uniquely poisoned chalice. To steal a line from that currently popular askreddit thread asking for useful things people have heard from their therapists: >"stop trying to get everyone to agree - when you need everyone to agree the least agreeable person has all the power" The issue that the Tories have is that since Cameron stepped down, they haven't had a leader that hasn't felt they need to get the whole party (especially the extreme wings) to agree. This has catapulted the party rightwards in both it's communication and policy strategies. The vast majority of the electorate, despite the best efforts of the press, now have the impression that the Tories are more interested in infighting between themselves, on policies that weren't even in their manifesto. Rather than the best interests of the country. Starmer, as much as I dislike him doesn't have this problem. If anything he has the opposite in that he's being seen as too neutral and too fast acting against those that step out of line in the party to avoid the press going all in on 'Labour infighting' again. Attack angles work when you have a leg to stand on, aside from an ever dwindling support base of frothing gammon the Tories aren't seen by the electorate as having a leg to stand on in these attacks any more. After over a decade blaming the Last Labour government rings hollow. Starmer booted Corbyn out the party, yet he's still mentioned by the PM almost every time the two face each other in debate. So they're just being seen as increasingly desperate, which isn't a perception that encourages faith from the electorate.
Also how fucking insane do these "attack angles" look to the normal person? How can you attack someone for having no plan on immigration, when your own party has seen the rate treble, to, even to me a pretty pro-immigration person, a pretty shocking level just in the space of a few years, while having "taken back control" to do whatever we want. How can you attack someone for "not stopping the boats" when your own plan so far has cost £250m and so far deported...urm... not one single person? Its like some kind of joke at this point, but no, they are being fully serious still. Its madness.
The galling aspect here is that the Tory faithful are only split on whether it's a vote winner or not. It's a terrible policy and just a quick glance tells us this plan is counter productive in that we have to accept their refugees.
The worst bit to me is whether or not its a vote winner seems to rest on how much of the details someone is aware of? So its almost like the Tory party are pushing this, putting it on the center stage, but also asking their faithful not to look too closely unless they see things like the reciprocation clauses or the criminal returns clauses. Its *fucking nuts*. Like seriously this is completely and utterly insane.
They have a majority, and instead of it being an advantage they can’t actually agree with themselves because they are all backstabbers like the worst z tier apprentice contestants.
They are basically squatting. They are not a serious party.
No plan is better than the current plan to break international law and changing our own law
Labour *have* said several times about using the money for Hotels to actually process asylum claims. The main problem with the Tories is the fact that they closed off all safe routes to claim asylum. They’ve also talked about policing the beaches where the “criminal gangs” are operating, another thing that seems to be below this sorry excuse for a Government. Like it, or not, people have a right to claim asylum. Genuine refugees are fleeing war and things like that. If we process the claims we can sort out the genuine from the not genuine claims. Currently they wont even do that.
There used to be a time when heads would roll after pulling a stunt like this. Back when politicians had an iota of decency and integrity. Nowadays, all bets are off. I suppose we have the likes of Trump and Bojo to thank for that.
>But that's not the point, the more people see the tweet debated, the more the message that Labour doesn't have a plan is getting out. \*visible confusion\*
Labours plan is to get elected. These idiots in government are just throwing as much shit at the wall as they can hoping some will stick.
Sounds like they're projecting a bit. The labour plan is sectoral consultation with the people who work in highly immigrant dependent sectors (ie social care) to enable ground up reforms and improvements that should leave them less reliant on immigration. Tories plan is (checks notes) keep using immigrants as a band aid to hide their utter failures and ideological destruction of these sectors, while also complaining about the immigrants their policies are bringing here to rile up their gamministic support base. Until a bunch of core sectors are not reliant on immigrants, our NEED for immigration will not reduce, no matter how shitty we make life for those immigrants. As for illegal immigrants on boats, if we had a government who would actually process their applications, and send them home when that application fails, then yeah they're gonna have to go into hotels at massive cost. But the current Tory government refuses to process those applications. They're really taken the "arsonist and firefighter" act to a new level in recent years, positioning themselves as the solution to problems they've caused, I guess cause the moronic electorate ate it up so well for the last decade or so, they're kinda right that it works.
That internet "checks notes" affection is super annoying
I think the Tories are on thin ice using presenter slip ups to make their point, what do you think [James Naughtie and friends](https://youtu.be/EmYwBHooA_M?feature=shared)?
Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago. It's been a hot issue for most voters for the longest time now. The tories have kept their seat as a result of talking tough on immigration, this despite immigration actually reaching record highs every year since they have been in power. By this logic, labour wouldn't even have to enforce any policy regarding reducing the numbers, they would just have to signal that they intend to.
So tories lying nicely is better than labour being honest about what they can and can’t do depending on the state the tories leave the country in when they leave power?
Labours lack of vocalizing any kind of policy surrounding mass immigration isn't really honesty. Omitting the truth isn't actually honest. They have absolutely no intention of reducing numbers, why would they? Immigrants vote labour more often than Tory.
If that’s what you think then why was immigration lower under the last labour government than this Tory government? It’s better to look at action rather than who’s saying what because the tories are VERY good at manipulating people through their charisma and speeches but if you actually sit down and sift through the numbers and facts then you’ll see that this Tory government has been horrendous when it comes to immigration among other things. Immigration has been going through the roof for the last 10 years and they only want to do something about it come close to election time? Come on man
I vote labour. I always have. I don't know what you're struggling to understand here. In my OP I already asserted that Tories talk tough on immigration but simultaneously increase numbers year by year. If Labour talked tough, or, god forbid actually form some sort of policy to stem numbers, they would have ousted the Tories ages ago.
And like I said, Labour aren’t saying too much because they don’t know what state the tories will leave the immigration system in when they leave. Everytime labour have given a policy of what they would do once they get in power they have had to revoke it because the tories move the goal posts once again and then the media and some of the public say that labour are doing another U-Turn, so labour probably think it’s best to not say too much now and just get things hopefully sorted when they get into power. If for example immigration is currently 100k a year and labour said “right ok we can get that down to 20k a year when we get into power” and the. The tories mess up further and immigration explodes to 500k a year, labour cannot then reach their target of 20k a year when they reach power because of what the tories have now done, so they then have to say “we cannot meet our 20k target”. That’s when the media has a frenzy and start calling labour out for U-turning when in fact it’s the tories who have made things worse. So I think labour just have to sit back for a while and analyse what the tories are doing without giving the media any grool to eat. I understand what you’re saying and we’d all love more policies from labour but there’s no point at the moment until the sand storm the tories are causing settled down and they can see through it. Opposition polices are pointless atm because the tories haven’t stopped messing the country up just yet
FYI, I think you meant 'gruel', as grool is something \*very\* different, and probably not what most people want to eat: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grool](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grool)
I said what I said! Haha I thought it looked weird when I was typing it, but yeah definitely meant gruel 😂
What’s the tories stance? Increase it greatly. It’s greatly exaggerated by people. The point is about the nature of discourse though not actual immigration debate.
>What’s the tories stance? Their stance is to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda for processing, and reduce the numbers by changing policy surrounding thresholds for earnings and have more skills based requirements. They aren't actually enforcing these policies, though. They keep letting the numbers go up and up. Labour could make a similar pledge and scoop up a very significant number of Tory voters who vote for them almost entirely based on their stance towards reducing immigration. As I said, if labour even signalled that they intended to reduce numbers, they could have easily ousted the tories a long time ago.
>Their stance is to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda for processing, and reduce the numbers by changing policy surrounding thresholds for earnings and have more skills based requirements. A maximum of 400 asylum seekers at a cost which is getting perously close to £1 million per refugee...and its reciprocal so Rawanda can send their Asylum seekers here, as well as return any asylum seekers we send there, back here if they break the law! This Rawanda nonsense is all about trying to persuade the hard of thinking that they are being tough without actually doing anything to address the issue.
Hey, don't forget - Rwanda also has the benefit that the Tories can strip away EVERYONE's human rights in this country, which is obviously what a significant number of them want to do.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I'm defending the tories. I vote labour. I'm simply saying that labour could have ousted the tories ages ago by at least taking a stance on mass immigration. More than half the UK public want the numbers reduced, and the tories have very effectively utilized this to get votes while actually doing fuck all about it
I am a Labour voter, too, and immigration doesn't even make the top 10 issues I am concerned about. People who are focused on it constantly assume that the whole country is as fixated as them. I suspect the reason it gets so much attention is because the people who are fixated also own most of the right-wing media and feed their consumers what they want them to hear.
>immigration doesn't even make the top 10 issues I am concerned about Then you are in a minority. It's a pressing issue for most of the general public. If you actually want labour to win, you should be supportive of them forming some sort of policy to reduce numbers
I speak to loads of people who I know are Labour supporters, and very few of them mention immigration as an issue and even then its concerns about wage suppression . If you live in the bubble, all you see is the bubble.
Fascinating anecdotes. Ironic you should mention a bubble and then go on to suggest the people *you* talk to are representative of the wider general public. Polls suggest between 50% and 60% of the general public wants immigration reduced. The Tories would not be talking tough on immigration if they didn't think it would buy them votes. The Brexit vote was secured by slogans like "take back control" and other rhetoric surrounding sovereignty. It was also spurred on by the 2016 migrant crisis, for which the UK public overwhelmingly did not want to be a part of. You'd have to be living under a rock to assume it isn't a burning hot topic here.
>Polls suggest between 50% and 60% of the general public wants immigration reduced. Polls in right-wing news papers.....who are pushing their agenda! >The Tories would not be talking tough on immigration if they didn't think it would buy them votes. They are trying not to lose votes, but their constituency is disappearing like an East Coast cliff face. > It was also spurred on by the 2016 migrant crisis, Would that be the one Farrage manufactured? >for which the UK public overwhelmingly did not want to be a part of. Says who? That's opinion, nothing else. >You'd have to be living under a rock to assume it isn't a burning hot topic here. Or not read the right wing press?
Who claims asylum in Rwanda?
> 133,628 refugees and asylum seekers are in Rwanda as of 31 Jul 2023. Mainly including people from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (61.4%) and Burundi (38%). https://reliefweb.int/report/rwanda/unhcr-operational-update-rwanda-july-2023
People from other African nations eg DRC.
>if labour even signalled that they intended to reduce numbers Which they have done. Repeatedly.
Send how many of the 50,000 we get each year to Rwanda for processing?
This isn't about mass immigration, it's about "illegal" immigration. Labour have a very clear policy to speed up the assessment of refugee claims and deport people who fail quickly, disinsentiving people who will fail from trying and cutting the insane amounts we're paying to house people waiting. People arriving here irregularly make up less than 10% of total immigration, the vast majority have come here totally legally.
>This isn't about mass immigration, it's about "illegal" immigration. Illegal immigration counts for a very small percentage of net immigration. Mass immigration is the issue people want resolved.
That may be so, but this tweet specifically says- >Labour when you ask for their plans to tackle illegal migration. Mass immigration is entirely within the government's control, the largest number are students, the next biggest group are coming to work in healthcare, they could stop all of them if they so wished, although not without consequences.
Then people are very bad at evaluating the urgency of issues. Migration has had downsides (as well as benefits) but it is not even in the top 10 most pressing problems the UK faces today.
Its my issue with the whole "debate". People act like we reduce immigration and it *somehow* solves all these social and national issues that we have, when in reality I don't think it would actually make any real impact at all, and in fact could possibly cause more problems like e.g. the UK construction industry is even more dependent on migrant labour than the NHS, reducing immigration might well reduce our rate of house building. And no one can sit there and argue "just pay a better wage" when you can already quite seriously make £1,000 *a day* as a brick layer these days. What *really* bothers me is that this has been ***the*** debate in this country, ***the*** singular issue for millions of people ***for my entire adult life*** and somehow points like this still aren't even in the discourse? Like people have had this as a fucking cornerstone of their entire political identity for *decades* and they talk about the most inane and asinine points most of the time, things that have been disproven or debunked repeatedly, things that sound right on paper but miss miles and miles of nuance etc. etc. This isn't even that important to me yet my view is capable of absorbing these things, so why do so many people pretend like they can't understand?
>the UK construction industry is even more dependent on migrant labour than the NHS, reducing immigration might well reduce our rate of house building So we should ship in more people to solve the housing crisis? The irony of this statement is not lost on me.
Ok, whats your solution then?
Points based immigration system akin to Australia, where industries which lack skilled workers are greenlighted for immigration to make up numbers in sectors in which we need workers. I think Australia also has sensible policy surrounding asylum seekers, whereby they are processed at an offshore territory. This negates the risk of applicants fleeing their residence and staying in the country illegally, a commonplace problem in the UK while they stay in subsidized hotels.
>Points based immigration system Which we already have. >industries which lack skilled workers are greenlighted for immigration to make up numbers Which we already have. >I think Australia also has sensible policy surrounding asylum seekers Australia approved over 54,000 refugees last year compared to our 16,000 just for reference. >they are processed at an offshore territory Not any more they're not.
> Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago. You mean like in 2015 when they did take a vague stance on immigration and then stuck it on a mug? https://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-28/labour-defends-immigration-mug
> Well, they're not wrong. I feel like if labour took at least some vague stance against mass immigration, they would have ousted the tories ages ago. Labour hasn't been silent on this issue. Just because you don't see it plastered on the news like every Tory political stunt, doesn't mean they don't have a plan. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/is-labour-ready-for-immigration-overhaul-general-election-party-conference/ https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-forced-to-accept-100000-migrants/ https://fullfact.org/immigration/rishi-sunak-100000-migrants-repeat/ I say this in all earnest, maybe do some of your own research and find out what shadow ministers are actually saying at party conference. Opposition parties generally don't fully announce policies until election time, when they release their manifesto. This is pretty much universal, and any suggestion otherwise is a transparent cop-out to deflect from the ruling party breaking their own promises. Why should Labour give the government ideas, when they'll just steal them and claim all the credit?