Labour Corruption?

[Zebedee999]

Labour took donations from the unions pre-election and are now giving pay rises to those same union's members with limited or no negotiations. Is this corruption?

YABU = Not corruption
YANBU = Corruption of sorts

Absolutely- and public sector pay is on average about 10% higher than the equivalent private sector role once you take into account pension. The problem is that many lower skilled people in the public sector are comparing themselves with higher skilled workers in the private sector

Not bizarre. Just checking to see whether you are an equal opportunity critic. You are not

Not sure how much they'll cost but detention centres aren't going down very well with charities

British people want asylum seekers removed

This is quite a broad statement, who specifically are you wanting to remove and to where?

Please inform me who my team is!

Invited Tory in 2019. I was horridly disappointed in them.

I didn't vote Tory this time. Haven't said I voted Labour either.

But I'm willing to,give them more than 6 weeks before I judge them as a failure and I'll judge them in things like corruption - when they are actually corrupt!

Well, that's quite easy to address. Firstly, I'd suggest actually negotiating. There is a middle ground between not negotiating and giving the other side everything that they wanted. I didn't realise I needed to explain what negotiation meant...

Goodness I didn't realise you were in the room with the negotiations. How fortunate @Tryingtokeepgoing .

Or did you just assume there's no way anyone else could actually manage a negotiation if the Tories failed? Would you like me to explain negotiation to you?

Clearly there was negotiation with the junior doctors, they settled for 2/3 of what they asked for.

@Tryingtokeepgoing what on earth makes you think I was referring to you?

Well, obviously if someone doesn't have a valid asylum claim, they should be removed. I don't have a problem with that.

In terms of detention centres - it might be better if we allowed asylum seekers to work and pay taxes. Then we probably wouldn't need detention centres at all, or they would look very different.

Thanks for that.

Some of the imbeciles here reckon I’m “Tory hq” or endless childish insults simply for expressing an opinion that others are welcome to disagree with.

Childish insults you say, like calling people imbeciles for disagreeing with you or questioning your agenda?

I don't know if you're a Tory or not, but your take on paying our key workers as corruption demonstrates gaps in your knowledge wrt corruption, economic reality and the needs of the UK @Zebedee999.

if someone doesn't have a valid asylum claim, they should be removed. I don't have a problem with that

We grant about two thirds, and refusals still have appeals and those who don't get asylum often choose to depart anyway, which is far cheaper than detention and removal for the UK taxpayer

From what you've said I'm not seeing a lower cost approach to trafficking. We will see numbers rise and costs along with it. And I'm not sure people will be happy with increased crossings politically

If two thirds have valid claims, so be it - so let's process those claims faster so that these people can settle, work, pay taxes and contribute. We need workers in any case - our birthrate is too low. Beyond that of course, asylum seekers are a very small percentage of the total number of immigrants to the UK.

Cost is a factor, but other factors are also in play.

Those 2/3rd may help plug the gap in the care system?

I read an article today where because if our rules in dependants now (Tories set it and Labour have no plans to change it) many care homes cannot accept people to capacity.

If people come here for asylum. Are granted asylum. They will want to work. Win win if they fill in gaps and pay their taxes and NI and contribute.

You can have as many people crossing the channel as you want via trafficking but it's not the best way to match job requirements, also how does it fit with this in your pp?

British people want asylum seekers removed

from other pp

Those 2/3rd may help plug the gap in the care system?

Would you want any kind of vetting before doing this?

Providing care to the elderly, the frail and the disabled is NOT a role that anyone can do, this idea that we have X number of people not working so they can do "Care Work" as if it was the same as picking up litter is beyond ignorant, its cruel, could lead to abuse and continues the narrative that care work is low skilled and v low paid.

Economic migrants need to be deterred from doing so, not given work, housing, healthcare etc, it just provides yet another pull factor.

I never agreed with Rwanda because it simply could never work, a few 100 migrants sent there was never going to discourage anyone but the principal of deportation is the correct one, however we voted to cut ties with the EU removing one of the means to do so.

Neither party know how to stop X channel migration, just as the EU doesn't know how to stop boats crossing the Med.

I never said I agreed with the kind of people who refer to those who cross in boats as 'illegal '. I don't. I just happen to think that if you want to tackle trafficking, you go after the traffickers.

Do you think that those who are granted asylum aren't heavily scrutinised already?

The Dublin agreement is only very small numbers, with conditions and we took more than left in the last few years. It's not a factor

A deterrent does work, but often it makes people voluntarily depart, which is what was happening to ROI across the borders

Voluntary is alway far cheaper if people want costs lowered. Anyway too late now, we'll have increasing numbers and all the associated increasing costs

I disagree and i'm backed up by the fact when we were in the EU, we did not have a X channel migrant problem, ferry/lorry security has been very good for many years now.

The economic migrant knew or feared being returned, so paying someone '000s to come here wasn't seen as sensible, esp given its a dangerous way to get here.

People from Afghanistan, Syria Iran are not going to be returning voluntarily & we have no means to return to France.

This doesn't' tally with numbers, you are looking at one way to enter and ignoring the other by lorries

Look up 2002 figures which were peak of 84,132

No one is using Dublin convention as a way to deport people in large numbers, if they were the EU would be doing so as they still have the convention

Since you mentioned lorries you know all that has happened is traffickers have found another way, but pre Brexit there was a peak which is higher or as high as now, Brexit isn't a factor as the Dublin convention has very little impact. Have you looked up the numbers returned and taken under it?

UK immigration in 2023

Do you think that those who are granted asylum aren't heavily scrutinised already?

What do you mean by scrutinised? I don't think the same process is used as say giving a work visa or sponsorship to work might have

Or even the process Ukrainian scheme had before people took them into their homes

But if you think they are scrutinised heavily would you be employ a male who has entered in this way to care for your dc based on the process they've been through?

No references or background checks but just the asylum process

You re not looking at where they came from, primarily Eastern Europe, 16k returns in 2002.
Asylum applications dropped to just 18k in 2010.

Lets look at the more recent picture shall we?

Since 2018, the numbers estimated to have successfully entered the UK by Lorry has hardly changed but by boat it has rocketed, imho not helped by us leaving the EU.

There is no parallel universe, so we have to disagree on this, especially as it has little to do with "Labour Corruption" of which so far there zero evidence for.

Dublin convention numbers were tiny. About 500 with more coming than leaving.

Migration numbers up to EU and US.

I didn't vote for Brexit but Dublin convention is often raised on these threads and it's not a factor, currently anyway. Things may change when the EU changes policy

I'm sure I've read your previous threads where you've advocated for the Australian policy of push backs and off shore indefinite detention.

And? How is that related to Brexit?

I prefer the Aus system, as do nearly all Australians hence no politician left or right running on changing it. It would be madness to run trying to sell in the numbers Aus had before it was introduced.

I haven't mentioned push backs, others have though. My posts are consistent with the one below re deterrent

If people think they'll save money under Labour's approach it won't happen, but also numbers will go up, and not everyone will see that as a positive

Because the conversation has been derailed from talking about so called Labour corruption, to small boats. I've seen you advocate for indefinite detention and push backs which are against international law.