Reform are getting a shitload of voters

The number of votes doesn't always mean anything. It's the concentration of them that wins the seat.

Labour got less overall votes this time than Corbyn in both the 2017 and 2019 elections.

Reform got 4 million votes and 4 seats, while the LibDems got 3.4 million votes and have 71 seats.

@DodoTired Ironically, there is a level of privilege that allows one to happily ignore concerns around increased immigration because they don’t affect you. See also the privilege it requires to ignore the importance of issues such as single-sex spaces.

Reform won seats in Clacton (Essex), Boston/Skegness (Lincolnshire), Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), Ashfield (Nottinghamshire) and South Basildon (Essex).

The only way Reform seats were won in the 'impoverished' north is if you turn a map of the UK upside down.

And this attitude is not tempered by immigrants from these areas living in the UK.. it also seems to get worse in 2nd/3rd generations.

We need to tackle this, without being called racist letting it go unchecked is a danger to women.

Because I spent some time in the ME I can honestly say the way women were treated is shocking. Of course the men think it’s fine and the women agree (!!). They walk around covered completely often in black in the heat to stop people like my husband ogling them.

A friend of mine was working for a Middle Eastern airline. She obviously wasn’t always at base but she was only able to stick it out 18 months. Women have no real voice. They are controlled by their male family members. They often have big families to keep the women suppressed and at home.

There are of course other parts of the world that are equally shocking with their treatment of their girls and women, controlling their movements in their teens etc. In Turkey regardless of your will as a women a certain % MUST go to male children even though they might be step children and you would prefer to choose yourself who you leave your money to!

God!
Just visited relatives all voted Reform. Had to listen to how asylum seekers get £38 per day and British people get nothing.

Privilege in this context doesn't equate with economic privilege. The men you refer to were disadvantaged on the basis of their class. They didn't have to deal with further disadvantage on the basis of their skin colour. And, being members of the physically stronger, more dominant sex class means they weren't disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, either.

This is what it boils down to: the specific layers of systemic discrimination which work against people on various bases. 'Privilege' was probably a misleading word to describe these situations because it's inevitable this would end up confused with economic privilege.

It isn't directly related to econonics. But it certainly can end up resulting in poverty through no fault of a person's own but having everything to do with their race, class, sex, mental health, neurotypicality or able-bodied status. People who have privilege don't necessarily see that privilege. It's only truly visible when you don't.

Problem is that people throw the racist label around so much, that now it just loses its impact.

This. It's in fact 'racist' you could say to imply all Reform voters are 'racist' when some of them are BAME, and some candidates too. My only black candidate was from Reform.

It doesn't help BAME people to smear a huge chunk of the electorate as racist. In fact, I would say, the opposite because people see it for the idiocy it is and then stop listening when there are real issues of racism.

White working class men only have privilege in the upside down. It's insane to say they're privileged. Think of the miners and countless other examples of working class men who've been harmed by their jobs because they didn't have any other choice (though it's not confined by skin colour - it's all working class men).

Working class men also got screwed during covid - often having to go out to work whilst those who claim they're privileged stayed at home. Many of them died as a result.

Generally white working class men feel threatened, yes, and losing what they expected to always have ie privilege

They sure don’t look privileged to me. They’ve always been a underclass in the UK, no?

Generally white working class men feel threatened, yes, and losing what they expected to always have ie privilege. So a lot of them vote Reform, yes.

If we were to increase capped schemes we would still have to process asylum with people arriving by irregular means

Can you think of how many in capped schemes would stop the requirement outside them?

On average we do 60k capped per year, we could triple that and still see trafficking networks use irregular methods for profit

Schemes will not end those gangs and profit so if you do want to stop it you’ll need another way

Arrogant Britain thinking it can solve the world’s problems.

Tbh climate change is not causing migrants to leave. It is pure economics. If the UK gave them nothing and they had no means of employment, they wouldn’t come.

Is it your position that “working class men” vote reform because they have a position of privilege? 😂

Well I agree those profiting from vulnerable people need stopping obviously and we need to be addressing the criminals as in catching and stopping them. This wouldn’t stop people needing refuge and finding other ways to their country of safety.
I am comfortable helping all people requiring asylum worldwide actually and think the world should want to! This statement does not equate to the U.K. taking every refugee in the world - that would never be wanted by most refugees and is rather a fib designed to rile us up about small boats.
Migration can be complex and to help all refugees (not just those feeling safe in U.K.) then I would include us doing things like stop selling arms to Saudi to bomb Yemen and similar. Continuing international aid but taking more steps to ensure it’s directed effectively. Not actually dictating, or trying to dictate how other countries should work. No disinformation- Iraq war for example, but also on a more local level.
For refugees wanting to come to the U.K. then I would prefer we had more accessible/safe routes to claim asylum. We also do take quite low numbers compared to similar countries in cases such as Syria and Afghanistan and I’d prefer that could be more equitable. This would address some small boat arrivals a lot more effectively. We cap numbers on these schemes as we are allowed to do so surely that would help in other areas of high numbers of refugees.
I would also stop the hatred being focussed on these boat arrivals as this doesn’t help anyone, causes distress on all sides, and is a poor and misinformed reflection of our immigration system.
We do need to look at all migration as it gets muddled and muddied with legal and illegal migration- both distinct from asylum seekers. But to look at that we need to address needs in our country in terms of economic viability and skills gaps and shortage sectors.
A lot of the above are difficult and long term and some require international cooperation too.
To directly answer your question then re U.K. - actually no one can put a specific number on a limit on asylum numbers in UK -for the UNCHR countries then we (and all signatory countries) should take all refugees for short term - if war ends for example - or long term from some very difficult situations. This is a legal requirement whilst we remain a signatory. We can put a number on schemes we do help with such as Syria and we do so - and if these safe routes were broadened then we could cap from other areas where larger numbers may need to claim asylum from and reduce the need for small boats that way.
We can cap legal migration and we can address illegal migration but we can’t refuse genuine asylum seekers arriving in our country - not via a normal legal route but essentially not illegal as they are claiming asylum. If they did arrive say on a holiday or as a student then they can’t claim asylum later - that is how it works legally.
If you think the small boats are more full of folk who are not fleeing war and persecution then we can refuse asylum and return - that is also in our rules and law. There has been a backlog for many years that has caused the current situation of hotels etc and addressing that by investing in administrative improvements is surely the quickest and most humane way of dealing with those still arriving.
Whilst most of above won’t happen and I’m idealising my shorter answer is then there is no number I would give for asylum seekers as I do still remain completely comfortable to the U.K. abiding by conventions, international law, and being a place of sanctuary to accept refugees seeking asylum here.

It’s not racist to acknowledge there are very misogynistic cultures whose views of women as a whole, are very different from the average British view

I think it is incredibly misogynistic to ignore bad male behaviour simply because it is embarrassing to government policy.

Women (particularly vulnerable) suffer the consequences of a lax migration system where men from cultures wholly disrespectful to women are able to come to a country where the standards are higher. This took a LOT of work (and yes, still a work in progress) but feminists will throw us under the bus because it is inconvenient to the powers that be.

You should be livid about it.

Yeah right 🤣
they expect to have a relatively well paying working class job though, it’s their right! Whereas it is actually not a given, you need to compete nowadays to have a job. Do something. Train harder. Work harder to be promoted (like women have to). Maybe even move cities or even countries. Like many non-white people do.

Saying “all men are misogynist, all Reform voters are racist” is saying an equal proportion of British men and men from other cultures/religions are misogynist, when we know that’s just not true. In some countries women have nearly no rights and being gay is punishable by death. Most people growing up there will agree with those views. I personally don’t want huge amounts of those beliefs here.

Not at all, he is far from racist and his girlfriend is Chinese. I never felt unsafe walking home alone at uni, even at 3am. She says there are certain areas she walks through and gets leered at by huge groups. I’ve never come across that personally. It’s not racist to acknowledge there are very misogynistic cultures whose views of women as a whole, are very different from the average British view.

Yes I mean the people taking large profits to fill boats and other and often using horrendous strategies along the way

I am comfortable with helping all asylum seekers tbh

to note only a certain number would want to come here

How many do you think would want to come here? Just roughly what do you envisage

All trafficking is unacceptable - forcing people to do against their will for traffickers own gain is unacceptable- I avoid some nail bars, car washes etc for this reason.
Many trafficking victims are here legally, more illegally perhaps but entering legally initially as in not on small boats. It is easier to offer a great job and plane ticket than a boat and more practical as they’re more likely to survive and they can be corralled easier once arriving in U.K. It is all appalling yes.
current policy (under Tories) is to return victims of trafficking back to their home country in nearly all scenarios. I definitely think we should root out all victims of trafficking but not necessarily return all home immediately.

The small boats however, which I guess you are referring to, are not full with trafficked people, but asylum seekers. Yes, they are
exploited as in charged highly for the boat - this charging system for goods desired will always happen legally and illegally to an extent but illegally then the exploitation gangs should be stopped. Yes, they are often exploited by adverts at home promising a great life in the U.K. - this too should be stopped.
There will however still be refugees in the world, some of whom would wish to come to the U.K. as their legal right - claiming asylum in a country they feel safe. They will find ways whether via criminal gangs or themselves. We should process them better, and more quickly, and have more safe routes - and obviously check they are genuine - we should also work more globally across other countries to manage this issue as it’s going to increase as countries become less viable to live in. I think we should do more on integration for the asylum seekers, legal migrants, and I think we should give facts to the public as to why we take migrants etc - I am comfortable with helping all asylum seekers tbh as it’s awful to be one - practically, we should review numbers and economics, and find a good way to accommodate and integrate- then work more globally to address the problems.
to note only a certain number would want to come here and refugees as a group provide more in net revenue to U.K. ultimately than average legal migrant - as did EU citizens but we don’t have that issue now.

Climate change and its impacts is going to lead to even more immigration, but Reform and their other hard right counterparts tend to be against investment in net zero policies. Far easier to have simple answers and stir up anger against newcomers from poorer countries with darker skin than deal with root causes. Sadly though electorates seem susceptible to simple answers and are often vulnerable to politicians tapping into anti establishment sentiment. Social media also makes it even easier to spread lies and myths.

Whilst all of this looks pretty bleak I think one thing that does help is that where you have at least a reasonably strong democracy, these type of politicians easily get exposed once they're in power as they actually have v little to offer other than division and hate. I suspect this will happen in at least a couple of the seats Reform won and certainly in Clacton where constituents will wonder why their newly elected MP is hardly around in constituency/House of Commons as he's swanning off round the world to suck up to Trump or hang out with other far right populists.

Problem is that most third world countries from which these people are fleeing have all three of these drivers; poverty, climate change and war, together with corrupt governments. It would take literally millions of pounds to even touch the surface of what’s needed, as well as tackling corrupt regimes.

Let's move into solution space?

What are the options ?

Try to stop it all?
By violence and force - that's never going to end well is it

Or By removing these drivers - the war , climate change and poverty that these people want to escape ? Ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities for their families no matter where they live?

what I am saying is they may have a connection in the U.K. - for example a cousin,

This has a cumulative effect over time as more people expand who they know

Is there a point with increasing trafficking where numbers could feel uncomfortable to you?