Reform are getting a shitload of voters

I’m not saying they all speak English, but many have at least some English, what I am saying is they may have a connection in the U.K. - for example a cousin, people they know and/or language skills. ,I say this as it is a fact that we get fewer from South American places where the primary language will be Spanish as they go to Spain, similar with French speaking countries who stay in France - it is a definite myth that all refugees arriving in France come to the U.K. - France takes many, many more than we do.
If they can’t speak English then there are interpreters to facilitate communication.
Reference men leaving families - there are many countries where a female has zilch chance of crossing the border legally or illegally, where it is far too unusual to see a female out alone, where it is nigh on impossible to get two people out so try with one - many many reasons. The pianist of Syria explains how they decided he should try solo.
Many illegal migrants do bring their families though - on visit visas which expire - many more than arrive as what most of the world call asylum seekers. I’m not sure if there’s any plan from Reform to address this?
So I’m not saying there is no abuse of migration but I am saying we can’t just assume all are the same with bad intent, that is simply not true either. We need thought out, realistic solutions.
Immigration is not a simple, one size fits all issue, and definitely has no simple solution such as ones suggested by Reform.

It’s a myth that asylum seekers on small boats all speak English. Many ‘lose’ their documentation on the way here so that it can’t be proven from which country they originate, so can’t be returned. They also cannot speak English (or lie?), so that questions about where they come from can’t be discussed either. Their countries are so dangerous apparently, that all these men are happy to leave wives and children there while they seek a better life. If dangerous, the people they are running from, would wipe out their families back home.

White men in the UK are as misogynic as any racial or religious group of men. The common factor in misogyny is men. Religion and ethnicity are easy targets.

Stupid uneducated comment, because you don’t know every single person who votes Reform, so obviously can’t put them all in the same ‘racist’ box, just like we don’t know every single Labour voter is anti semantic (lots are unfortunately, but not all). Problem is that people throw the racist label around so much, that now it just loses its impact.

If I fled the U.K. then France would be my nearest country - thing is I can’t speak French and know no one, I didn’t fight with the French army either - I would never be able to make a life there and I would continue to be traumatised as I don’t understand anyone and have no one to help me settle. At that point it could also a bit of a war torn country itself.
It would give me a sense of safety to reach a country where I have connections and/or speak the language. I would rely on the law that says I can get to where I feel safe, not where someone else decides I should feel safe.
In fact it maybe it’s so dangerous for me to travel out of the U.K. I would have to send my partner and just pray he’d get somewhere and then be able to send for me.
I think as women we should definitely understand feeling safe.
Look up the pianist of Syria to find a first hand account- he settled in Germany as it happens.
I’m not saying immigration is a simple problem, personally I think it needs global discussion, however saying people should stop in any of Libya, Greece, or France isn’t recognising either the UNCHR, the law or the reality.
I see on this thread we should try to understand Reform voters, people worried about immigration- equally everyone discussing it should understand the legalities of asylum seeking as well before agreeing with Reform’s very over simplistic and unworkable solutions too.

I didn’t vote for Reform and wouldn’t. But I also do not read a paper that denied Cologne New Year’s Eve mass planned harassment and assault of women didn’t happen.

Well enjoy voting for “feminist” reform who will make women “safer”. I won’t spend any more of my Saturday listening to people who can say with a straight face they/others voted reform out of consideration to women so my last word on this:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/second-reform-candidate-quits-over-racism-and-misogyny

PS : And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Anecdotally and IME if you look at the profile of the typical Reform voters they include feminism in their hostility against “wokeness” and get all red faced when you talk about how women’s safety issue and how men as a group make the streets unsafe for us. They really don’t care for women’s safety unless the victim is white and the aggressor is brown or black.

This claim doesn’t negate anything I’ve said above.

Women aren’t safe period and most women will be most at risk from men from their own community whether that be white or Asian or whatever.

As above : The idea that Reform will improve women’s safety is a joke. Men who use women as an excuse to vote Reform of all things are just racist.

It is not racist to acknowledge that there are many much more misogynistic cultures around the world that men immigrating to the UK bring with them.

That’s absurd and to me men like your brother are racist. They are quiet as mice about the (vast majority of) harassment that is committed by white men but are suddenly feminists when it comes to talking about “Asian grooming gangs”. Reform supporters are full of aggressive misogynists who are also anti-woman .

How does he think Reform is going to solve the problem he alludes to? And is he only worried about harassment of women when the men are brown and the women are white? 9/10 if I’ve been harassed it’s been by a white man who is usually drunk.

And since when have women ever felt safe to walk home themselves? Our women in predominantly white areas not subjected to that fear of waking alone and being hyper vigilant etc? I went to uni in the noughties, in my university there was a free women’s night bus which took women home from free from the student union every hour until 2am, so no women ever had to walk home due to not being able to pay for a taxi. We had rape alarms and stayed vigilant. This isn’t a new thing!

These men love to pretend women are choosing the bear because of a “certain type of man” whereas the truth is that many women of every race are choosing the bear no matter if the alternative is a white, Asian or Black man! The average Reform voter is not going to be kind and gentle to women and supportive of “woke” feminists. If you’re racist just own it but don’t pretend you’re voting Reform for the sake of women.

I dunno, my brother is Gen Z (smart and doing a masters) and voted Reform as he lives in a multicultural city, and is sick of watching his girlfriend getting harrassed/catcalled by certain groups and feeling unsafe walking home alone. Similar to what posters mentioned in the Jess Phillips thread about parts of Birmingham.

You may be right - I don’t know what young people all around the country think, but in my experience - my kids’ generation - generation Z - are generally tolerant and inclusive.

Maybe it depends where you live - in large multi-cultural cities where schools are diverse, children grow up with “difference” all around them, and know that everyone belongs regardless of where their parents might have come from.

Because it’s the most sensible thing to do so common sense says they would do this. Everything else looks less like fleeing danger and more like shopping round for economic benefit.

I think people have a hard time understanding that people who are safe would risk their lives once they are already safe.

You know they are supposed to seek sanctuary in the closest place not demand that we provide for them

why do so many people believe this?

And you know that there is no legal requirement to claim asylum in the first safe, or closest, country don't you?

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#:~:text=4.,country%20in%20which%20they%20arrive.

I don’t think @Neurodiversitydoctor really understands multiculturalism- the people she mentions have largely assimilated to Uk culture. The problem isn’t the colour of people’s skin or their religion.it is the lack of intergration. Living here without adopting British values and customs whilst simultaneously criticising the nation. It’s where there is a lack of pride in the nation, a lack of shared values and a lack of interdependence. It is destabilising society as the very things which hold society together are being destroyed.

This is interesting reading when one considers it in the context of immigration https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/what-holds-society-together-ibn-khaldun-durkheim-gellner-and-beyond

The thing is, posters looking at 2nd:third generation immigrants who have gone through the English private school system and thinking that’s the same as someone experiencing their community being taken over by immigrants who don’t integrate, which leads to the existing community being torn apart as the infrastructure structure is either overwhelmed or destroyed have no idea and trying to preach about the benefits and success in multiculturalism because their cleaner comes from the Ukraine and Pierre next door works on the trading floor and sometimes pops round with some Camembert and champagne are going to have to understand the real situation many people are facing with the consequences of their community being pulled apart. The crime, the overwhelming of public services the lack of mutual support giving rise to mental health issues etc etc.

This is why Reform is getting popular. People want a working society back.

I don't really get this kind of thinking.Citizenship generally implies an intent to stay I a country for the long haul and make a life there permanently.

The idea that we should just let anyone vote to decide the political direction of the country who works here is so odd to me. And what's more - I don't think the workers really expect this. No one goes to work somewhere else and thinks that entitles them to vote. If they want that kind of link, they apply for citizenship.

That being said - there is something to be said for considering, if we really do need workers for a sector (say agriculture) is it right to let them in for a bit, but avoid offering the benefits of citizenship for those who qualify and want it? There is an element of exploitation there, potentially. My partner immigrated from the Caribbean as a young man, with his mum who worked in a factory. I do think if we have made the decision that we are going to import labour it's right to think about those labourers as people we want in society. If we don't, maybe we don't really need them. (In her case she was entitled to immigrate as a commonwealth citizen, which she wouldn't be any more. Her grandkids still back home have no such right.)

On the other hand, there were real issues during that period with native British workers feeling their position in terms of things like pay was being undermined by all the labour from abroad, and I don't think that's necessarily untrue. It's always tricky.

Anyway - there is also something odd about people suggesting it is good to give influence to outside political forces because they want to dilute the voting power of citizens. I sometimes heard that argument about the EU and it always struck me as very odd.

We either have to build houses. Or ban holiday houses and apartments.

No party, including the Green party, has a realistic solution to climate change.

I used to work in an environmental field and part of the reason I left was the hypocrisy - preaching to people who go on holiday once a year that they shouldn't take a plane whilst jetting their employees off to conferences all around the world all the time.

The message is 'luxury for us but not for you'.

I actually worked in a city which did environmentalism right - the first most basic thing they did was make public transport excellent and extremely cheap. Most people got rid of their cars and just rented one when essential. Of course this was in a country with good trains / public transport in the first place. Where I live now in the UK there is basically no bus (or train) service that can get people to and from work on time, so obviously people have to have cars. x

There are LTNs in my city, as a result my driving time (and distance) has doubled. I can't do the journeys I need by public transport, most people are in a similar situation. It's lovely for the millionaires living right in the city centre who have empty streets around their houses now though.

Housing is built on land. We need to prioritise land for food production and should not be building on agricultural land,

Immigration is a problem now across Europe and North America, and actually in Africa and the Middle East too.

You cannot have a situation where you are welcoming in many people while local citizens cannot find housing, or a doctor or dentist, etc.

And the answer is not "just make more houses and dentists." There is a reason that there is a struggle to do these things, costs are high, there are a lot of constraints. The idea that you could have waiting lists for housing, and large numbers of people sleeping rough, while migrants are being housed, is crazy. It was bound to cause anger.

There are limits to who can be integrated in terms of infrastructure and also just community transformation. Capitalism already stresses out communities, they have shallower roots, families don't have the support they once did, where friends and neighbours could be depended on. It cares more about people moving around according to the needs of industry. That already reduces the number of new people that will be interested successfully.

Even in big cities like London, although workplaces and schools might seem multicultural, many are going home to families and communities that are not that integrated.

The refugee system is becoming a problem. It's aims are great, but it's getting on toward being a century old. The world was a very different place then, and the numbers that were moving around, and the circumstances, were so vastly different. It's unlikely that it is going to survive the coming migration crisis. The is not just a UK thing, it will end up being an international issue.

Immigration isn't the only issue for sure. But if no one will listen about this, I don't see why they would about anyone else.

Yes the Yen being strong favours you if you are working in Japan. Your wages go futher when you come home/ want to buy a house

Obviously. But you seem unaware that the Yen was very strong around the time of the Tohoku earthquake

There are others a few pages back who were not recognising that it is possible to employ people in another country without being committed to them for life.

If you have a grasp of things why on earth are you comapring people fleeing to your Dad in the 1970's?

Yes the Yen being strong favours you if you are working in Japan. Your wages go futher when you come home/ want to buy a house.

You would only have to be the same age as the prime minister to have been an adult in the '80s.