Thread 21 Starmer - Casting Nasturtiums

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5298316-thread-20-starmer-spring-statement?page=40&reply=143217222

Respectful and supportive discussion of things political and beyond

Cat, dog, flowers, haberdashery tax most welcome

Yes just heard it on TV when he did an interview on GMB

There’ll be someone along in a mo to say it’s a drop in the ocean, wont touch the sides etc - which is of course true, but it’s a step in the right direction and they can’t appoint the thousands needed all at once! People seem to expect them to solve problems at a stroke.

Remember the magic wand comments in the GE run up?

Indeed. It seems it wasn’t those voting for them who expected that though (on the whole). It’s the others, suddenly expecting it to be possible.

Or the opposition (Badenoch!) announcing they aren’t going far enough with things they could of and didn’t out in place for 14 years!

@2dogsandabudgie

if you've got over 770 people arriving by small boats as happened a couple of weeks ago, those people have got to be housed somewhere at a cost to the taxpayer, whilst waiting for their claims to be processed.

And here lies one of the most appalling issues that the Conservatives failed to tackle - the length of time to process those claims. Meanwhile, racking up massive hotel bills and stirring up trouble in towns where the asylum seekers were being housed. (Although I always wondered if this was deliberate …)

I don’t see how it could have been anything except deliberate.

Me neither.

If you’re claiming that most of these are economic migrants - as they claimed many a time - surely you process and remove them?

Not pay for them to live here.

Process them - returns those not eligible and those who are can work and pay into the system.

I don't know what is involved in the asylum process but I would imagine it is hard to prove who is genuine and who isn't if they don't have papers.

The problem could be resolved at a stroke if they were allowed to work.

I think it is safe to assume that the majority of refugees don't undertake this journey lightly

Basic accommodation and £49.18 per week per person for those in self-catered accommodation, and £8.86 per week for those in catered accommodation.

I am sure the Bibby Stockholm owners did well financially

Considering chance of death print you make it no money or anywhere to live or a job I always thought you’d have to be pretty desperate to cross the channel with just the clothes you’re wearing.

Former PMs and home secretaries may face Manston asylum centre inquiry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd02ngnm58lo

Two former prime ministers and three former home secretaries may have to give evidence to an inquiry into serious allegations of chaos and unlawful activity at a centre used to hold cross-Channel migrants.

It's not illegal when the <checks notes> Home Secretary does it.

Not really, because they still need somewhere to live which passes the problem onto local authorities. Need access to Dr's and dentists etc. The majority of them will be on minimum wage jobs so will need help with housing benefit etc.

The majority of them will be on minimum wage jobs

Will they? What evidence is there of that?

And what is wrong with being on a minimum wage?

The issue is that the minimum wage isn't enough to live on but apparently raising the minimum wage is a problem too

So if the 5,000 migrants who came across in March we're given £49.18 a week that's a total of £245,900. If they were given £8.86 a week that comes to £44,300. That's an awful lot of money.

So what do you suggest?

Leave them to it? They are not allowed to work, what are they going to do?

It’s peanuts in terms of the Home Office budget.

Which could be saved if we let them work, even in those minimum wage jobs. Whichever way you twist it, there are simple, practical and compassionate ways to tackle this issue. But for some reason, people would rather punish and vilify. Same for benefits claimants. It's the ugly face of a substantial number of people in the UK.

Johnson's partygate legal bill cost the taxpayer £265,000

There's nothing wrong with being on a minimum wage, but we have roughly 1.5 million people in this country who are unemployed. I'm sure a lot of those could do minimum wage jobs. I thought this is what Rachel Reeves was trying to sort out with her "If you can work you should work" statement. It's ridiculous for someone who can work not to work because they get more in benefits and them employ someone from abroad to do that job.

It’s also ridiculous to have people willing and able to work but not allow them to.

So are you saying it's OK for someone to stay on benefits if they don't want to work? Disability obviously excluded from this.