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

Your answer does suggest it's unlimited, as you replied with no cap.

It you mean you want safe routes that is not unlimited then you won't meet demand and trafficking networks will still operate. That's why the capped numbers is relevant as it won't be enough for everyone

For me it's not zero I'd say I'm likely middling in terms of public opinion, I mean 60k might be too high for some and too low for others.

What I'd prefer is a deterrent as that's the only way to stop profits via crossings and then it's entirely possible to put in legal routes solely. It can also be a fairer way to give places to people who can't make the crossing.

Sorry, that was my mistake, i mean asylum seekers not failed ones, if anyone can work whilst awaiting a decision, thats a huge pull factor, people granted asylum can work in any case.

However, failed ones aren't deported, the numbers who are is very low.

Simply because we don't have returns agreements/no paperwork/unsure of where they are from/disappear, combination of all of these.

So what do we do with these people?

I read @DuncinToffee ’s comment as meaning she wasn’t prepared to give a number to you rather than that she didn’t think there should be a limit. Maybe because she’s not privy to all the information so can’t give a reliably sensible figure, or maybe because it was clear you wouldn’t give a number, so why should she?

Or…the number is low because most of them have grounds for asylum?

Edit: the people in your last paragraph become illegal immigrants and there are processes for dealing with them - plus they have no recourse to public funds and can’t legally be employed.

What I'd prefer is a deterrent as that's the only way to stop profits via crossings and then it's entirely possible to put in legal routes solely. It can also be a fairer way to give places to people who can't make the crossing

The UK cannot offer a deterrent, short of forcibly stopping boats landing on our shores.
We have no Naru to deport them all too, Rwanda was never going to work, a 1 or 2% chance of being sent there? thats not a deterrent.

Well that's great for avoiding the issue and.I'd say their line didn't indicate it anyway

If people want their version of the system it makes sense to say what the reality is likely to be.

And I said I would after, which I have already, because as usual with these thread questions are not answered and I am interested in how people see it working in reality.

It doesn't really matter if they say 100k or 150k as it won't meet demand, and trafficking networks will still have a business making profits.

I agree with some of your posts but you also mentioned wanting the ability to return to the EU earlier

That deterrent was a strong motivator for voluntary departure to ROI which is in the EU. If you do want people going back to the EU voluntary movement is the lowest cost way to do it

The UK appears to often grant asylum to people who have been refused asylum in other EU countries.
We grant asylum to around 65% of claimants each year, i believe the figure last year was 84k claimants.
Thats 29,000 people who have no right to be here.

So cannot work, cannot claim benefits, have no passport etc? again, what do we do with them?

We are not talking low numbers at all.

We follow the law.
Failed asylum seekers can be removed. That’s the point of the process.

With agreement yes, returns to EU and elsewhere would be best but i think that is probably not going to happen quickly.

People crossing into ROI, the numbers were small and i think it could mean ROI re imposing border controls and a further decline in UK/EU relations.

Its an almost unanswerable problem given the constraints we are under.

Send them where and how?

The largest group of asylum seekers crossing by boat is Afghans, how would you send back a failed asylum seeker from there? or any country that refused to have them back?
Where would you send back an undocumented person?

There are reasons we don't send back many failed asylum seekers & as we have strict border controls and are an island, people are stuck here.

It is a very difficult problem to solve and imo Aus is the only ones to do it that I know well anyway, within current laws

I can't see any other option working which means numbers will go up

I take your point on ROI reacting but I don't think numbers would be small, it tends to have a cumulative effect over time

I haven't seen anything from Labour that will address this so it'll be interesting to see how it goes

Maybe don't assume so quickly

Anyway, I'll keep advocating for safe routes, you stick with your Australian style deterrent and we can both hope that we will never find ourselves in the horrible situation of having to flee our country.

Why would someone from Afghanistan fail to be granted asylum?
I get your point that sometimes it’s hard to know where to send people, but that’s an issue for the courts and the government to sort. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help those who are entitled.

Exactly

I don't even know if it is legal to put a number on the amount of asylum seekers a country is prepared to take in

It's such a small number of the total immigration, yet such demonisation.

What deterrent do you suggest Eastern?

You said no cap maybe write the answer clearly.

It's a hard question for someone who wants safe routes as it becomes clear you'll just get safe routes and trafficking networks on top. No one is going to go with uncapped safe routes and capped ones won't end the business model. It's pretty simple

I don't even know if it is legal to put a number on the amount of asylum seekers a country is prepared to take in

Unlimited then. Nobody is going for that.

The other thing is pretty much everyone posts their options which are not workable but also respond with I don't want numbers to go up when questioned

Do you want them to go up?

Meant 5 years. Fat thumbs. I think the problems with the NHS stretch way beyond giving the junior doctors a 22% pay rise. The root cause needs addressing first. Let's see if hospital waiting lists reduce or a&e waiting times, and the huge issues currently with GP surgeries improve. Doubt it.

Really

Shall we just agree to disagree?

Well I'd prefer people be realistic about safe routes as it keeps coming up

If they are the answer why do you think Starmer has not introduced them as the solution?

I mean he generally has the reputation on mn for being sensible and aware of the law (for Labour voters anyway) and it's a pretty big nuisance politically and if he could easily do it why not?

I think we must have the same union because that’s what happened to me last year and is happening now. We didn’t get our pay “rise” until almost Christmas and it caused problems for people also claiming UC because it was assumed that was their monthly earnings so their UC was cut.
My department also doesn’t know if we’ll have our jobs after March or, if we do, what they’ll look like because of funding cuts. And my pension is currently worth £350 a year. But hey, those of us in public service just click our fingers and money and perks rain down on us, eh?

Do you not think that the junior doctors and other public sector workers should have a pay rise? A little way back I posted an IFS analysis showing that public sector pay grew more slowly than private sector pay and in 2023 was still 1% below 2007 levels in real terms, whereas the private sector showed pay growth in that period of 4%. There's catching up to do.

And it's taken us 14 years to get to where we are - maybe give this government more than 5 minutes to do something about it before whining?

Well, have to start somewhere!
Doctors are leaving the NHS, doctors on strike, adding to waiting lists and to correct you again, its a staggered pay rise over 2 years, its not a flat 22%.

The independent pay review body recommended the 5.5%, are you arguing the Government should have rejected it? and why didn't Hunt set aside any funds to pay for it? even partially.

Labour could also make a start on getting rid of the private companies, often US based, which provide the services we need, such as healthcare in the community, why waste money duplicating so many back office functions, with care provided by former NHS staff who wear the same uniforms, same T&Cs as their NHS counterparts?

Let's see if hospital waiting lists reduce or a&e waiting times, and the huge issues currently with GP surgeries improve. Doubt it.

I can’t see any reason why not - the last Labour government managed it.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/high-performing-nhs-review-progress-1997-2010

Different times, the UK could borrow, raise taxes and Labour used EU workers to assist, we voted to make sure that cannot happen again.

Also Starmer is a Tory with a red tie