To think Reform aren’t going to win the bloody election

[Edenspirits73]

All I have seen all over social media is that Reform are going to win the election 🤪🙄 (probably Russian BOTS just like BREXIT)

The poll I have attached below is from Opinium who got the 2019 general election result almost exactly right with their polling methods and is one of the more recent polls. The research methods they use hold up better to scrutiny! Ipsos Mori were also pretty spot on so these are the polls I tend to pay more attention to.

Aibu to think that we aren’t in for a Brexit style shock are we?

I live in hope that the U.K. really isn’t full of reform voting racists 🤞🏻🙈

Since you mention it - given that these doctors and engineers (seeking asylum from the war-torn failed state that is France) apparently cannot access the gravy train; what are they doing when they get here?

Who is giving these people bank accounts and/or legitimate jobs when they can't pass a background check, and where are they living?

If they're asylum seekers then they're waiting for their claim to be assessed. If they're illegal migrants they'll disappear into the black economy. Either way they're not claiming benefits.

You could mine the entire channel and 'stop the boats' completely but that won't make a dent on net migration or evdb illegal migration for that matter considering the largest cohort of illigal migrants are visa overstayers.

Ps saying things like they're all 'doctors and engineers' or 'fleeing from war-torn France' just exposes your ignorance and diminishes your argument.

100% not all us "British " people are white and we do care, who comes into the country when we have bent over to abide by rules.

Ooh come on, Jeremy was all over twitter in the last election as being the next PM.. didn't go very well. If you get your news from twitter, then it says it all.

No; worst case scenario is that they would win 3 or 4 seats, more likely 1 or 2, best case scenario none. However, they could help to push the Tories further to the right.

I’m wondering why Starmer thinks Labour solely has the ability to arrest and stop trafficking networks

Does he think other leaders in EU etc seeing far right gains are not under pressure to get results?

He sounds too removed from reality

Just to expand on that Macron is facing career ending election under pressure of far right gains

Other EU countries similar

Billions of euros are being sent to Tunisia etc to try and stop the flow

Do people and Starmer really think he alone has thought of arresting as the way to stop the political carnage they are experiencing? Is it over confidence or something else?

In addition if France track right we become more attractive to their electorate as the place to take people

PS. It diminishes nothing, it just offends you.

If they were refugees they wouldn't be breaking in, and hotels, houses, food, water, entertainment, and the NHS are not cost-free.
The sea people are all - to a man - illegal migrants. There is absolutely zero moral argument that you can pass through several safe western nations and claim "asylum" on an island after paying for a spot on a boat.

However, make no mistake, the boats are an obfuscation. It's the ridiculous amount of 'legal' migration that people have the main problem with. The boats are all you hear about because neither the Tories or Labour want to touch it, because they are not interested in stopping it.

There's no way of applying for asylum outside the UK. The majority of those on the boats are from Afghanistan, which is under the rule of the Taliban. I think the second largest are from Iran. The majority get refugee status.

They're given £50 a week and a room in a hostel. They can't work and their application can sometimes take years.

The majority of illegal immigrants are those who have overstayed their visa.

Absolutely agree. I know my grandad went through a tough time trying to integrate but he did.
British culture really does encompass all races.

PS. It diminishes nothing, it just offends you.

Doesn't offend me in the slightest and it does dimish your arguement as it marks you out as someone who is unable, or unwilling, to separate fact from fiction and to spread misinformation because it plays to your bias.

The cost of housing and feeding asylum seekers is entirely government engineered, claims used to be processed in a matter of weeks, not years. There's no reason that can't be rectified other than it would stop certain tory backers from profiting.

And there's plenty of moral arguments for claiming asylum outside of the first safe country you encounter, all of which are very well documented and is why the refugee convention specifically omits a clause that would limit that. I suspect you don't accept any of the arguments however, but I would ask you this: why do you think it is morally acceptable for the UK to bear no responsibility for the people displaced by its warmongering in the Middle East?

However, make no mistake, the boats are an obfuscation.

Yes....that is what I said in my original reply, you're the one who ignored that bit and had a rant about the boats instead (and proved exactly why everyone in power ignores the actual issue).

I think I'm seeing the problem. The bit about doctors and engineers, and France being war-torn may look like misinformation, but it is in fact sarcasm.

I have yet to see a decent moral argument anywhere, other than 'because we say so'. IIRC the Convention concedes that they are can be penalised for breaking into a country after passing through a safe one, though the UK managed to find a way to bypass that.

I didn't ignore anything. I was agreeing with you that it's an obfuscation but my issue is with how we define them as asylum seekers, and your claim that they aren't receiving public money when they get here. The Serco gravy train is real.

Aside from that, it seems like we agree on most else. Good to meet a fellow racist who wants the trafficking stopped and the immigration lowered.

" IIRC the Convention concedes that they are can be penalised for breaking into a country after passing through a safe one, "

No, there is no need to stop in the first safe country. This is part of the Geneva Convention on the rights of the refugee.

Cite your sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/nigel-farage-andrew-tate-important-voice-men-podcast-interview

I didn't say that did I? I said that it is it still a crime if they haven't come directly from their country.

My source is, as stated, the convention.

I also said that it has since been subverted, which you'll be ecstatic to hear.

It's not a crime. There's no obligation in the Refugee Convention to claim asylum in the first safe country.

Emmanuel Macron will not be President after 2027, the question is who it will be, and who will be Prime Minister after 7 July. Current polling suggesting that the alliance of left wing parties and the Front Nationale (as they used to be called) will be the two largest parties, with the third party being that led by Mr Macron.

You appear to be very confused and your post makes no sense.

It isn't a crime.

Can't say I've heard anything to this effect. On the contrary I heard Nigel Farage saying yesterday that he thinks that they'll probably end up with 4 or 5 seats. Hardly enough to win!

To somebody with a decent grasp of the English language it makes perfect sense. Breaking into a country is a crime, you're just not allowed to enforce it.

1. The convention states that refugees etc. may not be penalised for the CRIME of breaking into a country if they came directly from their country of persecution. This is fair, due to the circumstances in which some refugees find themselves.

Ergo, if you don't come directly from your country of persecution - e.g. the French coast - you can be penalised for breaking in. This is also fair, because 'seeking refuge' is not a synonym for 'indefinite holiday to a country of your choice'.

1. Despite the above being quite clear, its meaning has since been subverted by the totally rational and not at all ideologically challenged UNHCR to actually mean "they must not have settled somewhere else first because of [reasons]", so you have to let them in.

1. There is no moral argument which favours this interpretation, and in any other MN thread this behaviour would be seen very differently.

Example: You live somewhere remote and one dark and stormy winter night there is a knock at the door. It is a fighting age male whose car has broken down, and he asks for refuge. You offer him your spare bedroom but he says he wants to sleep in your bed, and refuses to sleep anywhere else.
Is this reasonable?

"Breaking into a country is a crime, you're just not allowed to enforce it."

Using that term is incorrect.

Can you quote the convention directly rather than using your own loaded terms?

I don't think it says anything like the things you are claiming for it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxq82xwkl1o

Well it comes as zero surprise that my county sees its first Reform Mayor. A county that's proud of its military history and its country. I'm delighted.

Me too! My local MP is still to come in but it’s predicted that reform will do very well.

Fingers crossed for you x 🙏