Angela Raynor still doesnt get it.

This is the thing with being in government though, you have to get on top of the detail as well as the bigger picture.

The danger with only prioritising the ‘big items’ you are proposing is that the smaller amounts rapidly add up.

What percentage of the public finances do the ‘big items’ you mention represent and what are the savings/gains you predict that would make it sensible to ignore lots of smaller areas with high waste/fraud/potential for higher gains?

They don't need to withdraw from the ECHR to do that. Even before Brexshit, there was more the UK could have done to increase the stringency of criteria, however it chose not to.

Also, it would require other changes of law to enable applications for asylum to be made before landing on UK soil. The boats will continue to arrive all the time that they have to be on UK soil to apply, and while the gangs are peddling a dream that is already not true. And you still have the problem of it not quite being as simple as 'deporting them to where they come from' otherwise the problem would have already been solved. They are essentially already put in processing centres, however those processing centres are full as the rate of processing needs to increase. This is what the government has already started to rectify to clear the backlog and enable arrivals to be processed more rapidly.

There is proof... recent BBC investigation - undercover recordings of these people out to cheat and lie.

Well there is. You withdraw out of the ECHR and simply say for the next 2 years at we will not take any asylum claims at all. Anyone who turns up in that period with never have their claim processed ever. Anyone arriving will be deported wherever that they have come from or put in a processing centre until they can be repatriated. It is the nuclear option but it would make the number drop off a cliff. No one will do that but when people say there is no way to deal with the problem, there is, however unpalatable.

It isn't nonsense. Those are the actual figures. I agree that the money could be put to better use, however there is no magic wand that can be waved to solve it immediately. Admittedly, the government could throw more money to reduce the queues faster, but that would cause more complaints I would think.

The new Labour government had a perfectly good plan to stop the boats handed to them on a plate immediately they took office. It had taken months to work out but was just beginning to bear fruit. It involved sending potential immigrants with dodgy credentials to Rwanda for processing and settlement.
Labour’s ideology and their racism wouldn’t let it continue so they scrapped the scheme at enormous cost.
Is it any wonder people are sceptical about Labour’s commitment to stopping illegal immigration?

Yes. You don’t win voters by calling them racist and ignorant for not voting labour or wanting rights for biological women

What nonsense. If that figure is correct then in the opinion of many, if not the majority, it is still too much. Genuine asylum seekers excepted, those billions should not be spent on supporting unknown and often criminal young men who force their way illegally into the country. We all know there are much better and more important domestic issues that would benefit from that not insignificant amount of money.

I agree completely.

I often think that MN is an excellent reflection of this. Whenever a thread starts about welfare reform then it will inevitably be inundated by often a group of posters throwing around insults and berating anyone that wants reforms. If you read the posts alone you would be forgiven for assuming that almost everyone views welfare cut backs as abhorrent and inhumane.

The polls always show the majority support cuts. There are obviously a hell of a lot of people that think we need to make cuts that can't be bothered engaging with the militant posters that insist otherwise.

A political party operating in a democracy would be wise to take more notice of the polls than the posts.

This. The labour party must stop listening to the noisy minority who scream every time welfare reform is raised, and just get it done.

The 4 point minimum per category was a solid start and they back tracked.

They aren't realising most voters want this we are just quieter about it.

The government spend 5.5bn on asylum seekers. Total government spending is 1368bn. This is less than a half of a percent.

Even if it was 20bn, that is still only one and a half percent of total spending.

Let's assume your 20bn number is correct, and I agree that it is not a small number, the government are actually investing money in the short term in order to reduce the number in the longer term by processing more quickly. This will not stop the ingress of people but will reduce the overall number as the length of time they are here will reduce. So, this problem is already dealt with apart from the time to catch up with the backlog.

The focus ought to be, and appears to be, on the larger spending issues.

If you've ever run a business you'll know that this is a totally usual process. Hit the big items first, then move on to the smaller ones. It is not sensible to direct 100% of the effort onto less than 1% of the benefit.

TIL £20bn is "not worth bothering about"...

Well, for me it is about perspective. The government spend less than a half of a percent of total spending on asylum seekers. I think there are bigger fish to fry, hence, if a few people get through the system, the cost for the UK is so small it isn't worth bothering about.

I don’t blame her for trying to secure her son’s current but her failure to pay tax due (especially after her previous issue either HMRC) is disgusting. She should never be in power again.

You seem to be unaware how Westminster and beyond works.

My family member is married to a former government minister. Their social and work network is A list and extremely comprehensive. If you are suggesting that as Deputy PM, Rayner does not have access to the full and very extensive network and can’t get linked up with the best tax advisor in London then you are saying she’s an utter failure as a politician. Politics is about networking.

As a politician she should understand that she will be scrutinised - it’s pure arrogance or gross incompetence to not take it heed adequate advice.

It's annoying when this kind of comment comes up in here. UK citizens moving to other countries have to fit whatever criteria that country demands. I've lived in other countries for work, and had to have a job lined up, prove I could speak the language, have a medical, pay for health insurance, was checked re police records, show proof of savings, etc etc. All fine by me. No way could I force my way into those countries illegally and then be housed and supported at taxpayers' expense. Why the hell should the UK not apply the same rules? So, as stated by PPs, those leaving here are working, self supporting, often high earners - the opposite of the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

@CornishDaughteroftheDawn I don't blame her for trying to secure her son's future with her riches but that's what we are all mostly trying to do !
And yet the labour party is punishing people for it.

You claimed that as Deputy PM she had access to the best possible tax advisers whereas there is no such ex officio access to tax advisers. Are you still claiming she did? It's quite OK to admiut you wre wrong.

I posted some stats last year showing how many asylum seekers we transferred to France under the Dublin Regulation and how many France transferred to us in return - bearing in mind that family connections and unaccompanied minors have a higher priority than 'first safe country' in any case. As you can see, very few were returned to France and they sent us more than we sent them:

Transfers of asylum seekers from the UK to France under the Dublin Regulation:
2017 - 10
2018 - 51
2019 - 53
2020 - 25

Transfers of asylum seekers to the UK from France under the Dublin Regulation:
2017 - 91
2018 - 92
2019 - 90
2020 - 219

How many asylum seekers first enter the EU via France - rather than via Greece, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary...?

Yes, you would hope that at the top of government she would be able to ask around and do a bit of networking and find the best possible tax advisers. Are you seriously claiming she couldn’t?

Very well said. Just to add, people in work also receive benefits - partly because their salaries aren’t high enough to cover the ever-increasing cost of living. The endless demonisation of benefits is so inaccurate and just pointless.

They are a right wing party. It's just that right wingers are clueless.

We have the 4th lowest benefits bill in Europe. Even Latvia and Croatia spend more per capita. You are falling into the trap of blaming the most vulnerable people rather than the elite that are the main problem. There is 25 billion in unclaimed benefits. Look at the people above you, not below.

How would her role as DPM give her access to the best and most accurate tax advice available? What is it about that role specifically that means she has access to the best, most accurate tax advice available?

They employ about 20 teenagers like they use to in my local Tescos ? I was on about £3 an hour, which I checked is probably about £6 an hour now. Minimum wage is about £8 for 16 year olds - that is 33% more expensive. I am amazed Waitrose employ so many teens but if that is happening local to you then great. My local Waitrose has about 4/5 people dotted around the store in around the checkouts as all self service. None are teens.

the fact is margins are very very tight for businesses at the moment. I just don’t think people genuinely realise how many businesses are on the brink of survival right now. You can suggest they don’t deserve to survive as that is fair assessment but if my business doesn’t survive that’s over 50 people unemployed. I genuinely don’t understand how people think that is better than having flexibility with zero hour contracts and lower pay for some employees. There isn’t a chance ever of utopia of high wages, high business rates, high Ni, high corp tax and a decent profit for most of the businesses in the UK.