The People demand that the Boats are Stopped.

[noblegiraffe]

I keep reading about the Tory government working hard to deliver the people's priorities:

"Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Government are focused on five immediate priorities. We will halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut NHS waiting lists and stop the boats."

Halve inflation (will happen anyway), grow the economy (vague), reduce debt (vague), cut NHS waiting lists (maybe by paying nurses and doctors more?), stop the boats (what?).

Maybe it's just where I live, but I'm not seeing this immediate urgent need to "stop the boats". It's certainly nowhere near my top 5 priorities for the government to be immediately tackling. If it was, I'd probably look at creating legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as a first step rather than shipping them to Rwanda.

Is it in your top 5 urgent government priorities? Are they speaking to the people and I've just completely missed it?

YABU: Stopping the boats is in my top 5 government priorities.
YANBU: I'm more concerned about something else and would bump Stop the Boats down the list.

We already do.

Wrong.

I absolutely understand why people in poverty and homeless or close to it, are unhappy with the idea of people from other countries being housed and fed, and they are understandably infuriated when they believe the misinformation that many news sources feed them.

Despite volunteering for an organisation helping asylum seekers, I'm not promoting open borders, I don't think we can take everyone, and I do recognise that there will be a section of people arriving who are not entirely genuine (though I've meet very few of those).

But what I do believe is that the government is deliberately mishandling the situation. There are very clear actions that would help that they're refusing to take. For instance they could provide legal means of applying for asylum from abroad, either within the original countries or from those that people travel through (or as the French suggest, from Calais) so that no-one has to risk the boats, either.

By all metrics (based on country size, or per capita) the UK takes far fewer refugees than most other countries. The majority of asylum seekers DO seek asylum in their first safe country or others along the way. Only geography 'protects' the UK in this regard.

You can guarantee that if the geography was different and the UK was earlier along the route that asylum seekers take, suddenly we wouldn't be saying "they should stay in their first safe country". We'd be saying "other countries need to step up and take their share"

KittyAlfred · Yesterday 15:49

"The Tory PM was a Remainer."

No he wasn't

Language and culture courses are important, no doubt.
But teaching local customs and manners doesn’t always mean people will actually follow the local rules.
I’m an immigrant myself and I’ve encountered others from my own home country who don’t really care about the customs and manners of their host country.
Of course there are also many who do, but I think it’s a bit naive to think that for example men harassing women in the streets do it because they’re simply unaware of the fact that it’s regarded as unacceptable here.

I can't help reading this thread thinking "is this what the Spanish and Portuguese think of British ex-pats?"

It's really not, I wish it was.

I'm not saying they're going to change a man that's deeply misogynistic and thinks it's ok to attack a woman. We have plenty of native British men who think that. Not having a course just further shows how the UK doesn't even think that's important.

It becomes clearer every day that we are ruled over by a people who despise us.

Firstly, she and her family are safe and dry. What efforts are they going to to secure their own accommodation? Saving up salary for a deposit maybe?

Secondly, if the "family member" really exists, then they should be sacked for sharing confidential information. That is utterly appalling, especially with no context or other information. It is a sackable offence.

So how the information was obtained is far more important to you than what the information is? Does this apply to everything? Or just topics close to your heart?

And presumably if they are living with in-laws they can't afford a deposit for a property. There is a cost of living crises at the moment, in case you hadn't noticed.

So your niece’s ‘family member’ who works in a ‘housing office’ told you this? 😂

That’s not how it works.

Asylum seekers are in houses of multiple occupation in parts of cities (not London) you wouldn’t want to live in, or in tired looking hotels without kitchen facilities, or old army barracks in other parts of the UK.

Asylum seekers have no choice over where they are housed and have no security of tenure. Check government guidance on this if you don’t believe me. They aren’t competing for social housing alongside your niece.

You aren't debating the issues here at all just engaging in playground level insults.

In addition you have made the following preposterous assertion -

There's post after post abdicating any actual responsibility for underperforming services that are by and large left wing dominated.

We have a Conservative government, have had for 13 years - are you now seriously saying that the reason services are shit is nothing to do with them? Seriously?

@Anklespraying The Prime Minister is the leader of His Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions.

www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works How government works

If there are underperforming services it would be for to the Prime minister and his party to resolve. They’ve had 13 years to sort it out but they won’t sort out the small boats issue satisfactorily because it isn’t in their interests. They would rather use the issue to deflect anger and attention away from their corruption and incompetence that has so badly let UK citizens down.

No the fact that actually they are currently safe is far more important to me. They're not fleeing from war or persecution. Their lives literally aren't at risk. Which is why I said "firstly".

I've lived in a one bedroomed flat with a baby and toddler as we couldn't afford anything else in the area - we ended up changing areas to a much cheaper one - so I do get how frustrating it is. But we were safe.

But it is a massive concern if people working in places such as the housing office are sharing highly confidential information.

Why? are Brits now making the perilous journey to Spain and Portugal on dodgy inflatable boats and claiming asylum when they arrive there?

Farmerama1
Asylum seekers have no choice over where they are housed and have no security of tenure. Check government guidance on this if you don’t believe me. They aren’t competing for social housing alongside your niece.

Perhaps the poster meant successful applicants?

If you made a successful claim for asylumEven though you may have limited leave to remain in the UK, you have the right to apply for an allocation of housing from the council or from a housing association...
https://www.housing-rights.info/02_2_Refugees.php

If you made a successful claim for asylum
People who have been granted refugee status are eligible to be considered for social housing...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/welcome-a-guide-for-new-refugees

@Farmerama1 If you're on a social housing list you also don't have that right. Lots of people on lists in London have been forcefully housed in poor coastal towns.

@DoraSpenlow If you are telling the truth, your family member should be fired. Disclosing things like this is extremely wrong. There is a system in place where very few people actually know and have access to a person's full application journey. It's unlikely even if they were personally processing the housing application, that they knew all the details as to their priority need and why they had that priority. Not all asylum seekers automatically get the highest priority.

Then please show me evidence where we are cramming UK residents into temporary containers placed in car parks - each container to potentially house 4 strangers where they will spend most of every day.

A processing centre sounds logical but a pp pointed out that Italy requested this of France, and they are not interested in it either. PP pointed out that many European countries might like their neighbours to set up a processing centre, but it isn't happening. My opinion is that, under current policies, countries rely on asylum being difficult, expensive and dangerous as a deterrent. If they make it free, safe, and efficient they worry they will be overwhelmed. Possibly Europe generally needs to make asylum policies much stricter. Japan accepts fewer than 1% of asylum claims, whereas Europe is 30% or higher. We don't need to go that far, but before processing centres can be established the policies need to be looked at. Otherwise no country will do it.

@8state I have a string suspicious France said no because of the hostility they've had from the British about this for so long, and te fact both countries are in the EU, so the placement of processing centres is not that relevant. Once the person gets an Italian passport, they can freely move to France and overall that's more the EU responsibility as a whole, rather than one EU country trying to sort this out with a non EU one.

@Dodgeitornot I don't understand what you are saying? Are you saying France refused because UK refused to set up a processing centre? I can't see the logic. I don't understand your point about the EU either, sorry.

Does it have to be a container? Or is an old temporary classroom type building ok?
I can PM you my LA, but I'm not outing myself on here, I'm about to give enough details. When my mum and disabled 8 year old sister were turfed out by their landlord, they went to the council. This is London so understandably very difficult to get housed. They just wanted help finding a private property as no agencies would accept them as mum was her carer. You can only go to the council once you have the signed document from the bailiff that you've been evicted. There's no where you can store your things, so if you don't have family support or money for storage, good luck. Of course you will need to furnish your new property eventually, but we don't care.
The council then housed them in emergency accomodation. This was basically temporary classrooms stacked on top of each other as well as a motel type building. They got a bedroom. Large communal kitchen and bathroom with 6 showers and 6 cookers for roughly 60 people. This was families as well as single men. No ensuite toilet. No washing machines.
My mum was luckily only there for 3 months until she was housed in a proper flat. The larger families had been there a year or more.
Flat she was given had black mould everywhere, rotten ceiling beams and no white goods. She was there 6 months before being moved again. No support or signposting with who can help move them in. There is no guarantee you will be moved around in that area, unless your children are in their exam years. My sister has an EHCP that is funded by the LA she lives in, so we lived in fear of them being moved to some coastal town hundreds of miles away, and having to fight for her EHCP to be funded there, not to mention finding a suitable school, only to be moved by the council again in 6 months. We know many this happened to.
After 7 years in another mouldy flat, they finally got a permanent flat. This was only because I paid out of pocked for an inspection which showed the beams holding up the roof above their bed (it was a bedsit) were so rotten the whole thing would collapse. My MP helped me massively. You'd think this would be fixed, 2 years after the move the council accidentally called me to update me on the roof being fixed. I told them my mum had moved out years ago, and the lady just hung up.
Maybe this is not a barrack, but there's also lots of ordinary British families living in Travelodges for years, as there's no housing. They are dealing with prostitutes and people having loud sex and trying to protect their kids from it all.
This is not a competition, however please don't say that we should be happy to do the same for those waiting for social housing. This is already the case.
The law changed in 2016 anyway, anyone on the list after that has no right to social housing, just housing. They're all mostly waiting for the council to find them private accomodation.

Sorry! If doesn't matter, I'm not explaining myself very clearly and it's just what I'm brainstorming is the reason, nothing factual.
It's pretty obvious the illegal migration topic is much more broad than just boats though. Let hope Rishi said boats as part of his slogan, but he actually means the whole immigration timescale and policy.