... to think that Nigel Farage will be our next PM?

[ohime]

Or, more accurately: AIBU to be afraid that truly nasty piece of work Nigel Farage who has, by all accounts, always been utterly useless at (or at least completely uninterested in) the actual business end of governing will be our next PM because everyone is so fed up with all the other parties being, variously or all at once, so corrupt, incompetent and useless that we've collectively abandoned all hope? I will never vote for Farage, who is a horrible man, or any of his party which keeps having to fire people for being just a teensy bit too overtly racist - but it seems from the polls that for many people the choice against the status quo outweighs what we may be choosing. (For an example, I can't believe that Farage's stated position that DOGE in the US didn't go far enough with its swinging cuts to the social safety net would be popular with UK voters who recently elected a government on the basis that it would reverse years of Tory austerity... not that that's worked out so well...)

@WaryCrow the UK population has not increased by half in your lifetime. And if you think it has show the figures and their source.

I’ll offer up this one https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatestimeseriesdataset

Still a significant increase but what possible benefit does your needless and so easily disproven exaggeration give? Surely increased by not far off one-third would still carry weight?

Right. Well, of course I would want to see vulnerable women and children protected as a priority. The reason why men make the journey first is pretty obvious: it's insanely dangerous. They put themselves in the hands of human traffickers and face real physical dangers way before they get anywhere near the Channel. You wouldn't want to expose more vulnerable members of the family to that, so you go first if you're a male with dependents. I suppose what Labour want to achieve here is removing the key incentive for the journey in the first place. For unattached single men, that won't make a difference. What I would really want to see is a safe path for vulnerable groups like Afghan women but in practice there are sadly too many hurdles.

You sound quite sympathetic to Labour’s approach even though it means pretty much no women and children will get access. This is a change they’ve made. Where’s the upset at that?

I've just explained and said that I do want a safe path for women and children here. The only way for them currently to make it to Britain is to send a man on that journey and hope he can secure a status that will also provide his dependents with a safe passage to Britain - but the ongoing outcry against refugees driven by Reform supporters is directly leading to Labour tightening the screws. Really, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't!

I think you might have missed what’s happened with Labour now. They’ve removed the right for family reunification meaning women and children who could get safe arrival now can’t.

What you don’t want is happening now due to Labour, not Reform.

No I haven't missed it. My point is that the political landscape is such that if they don't do it, they will get eviscerated for not addressing the small boats, right? So blame the hordes baying around the hotels to get refugees out because that type of stunt is pushing Labour into that corner. Not that I agree with it. I think Labour shouldn't do it. But then accept the fact that if you care about women and children from Afghanistan, you should let the men in their households clear the path for them. Are you happy with that? If so, ok, you may criticise Labour. If not, isn't that a step in the direction you want the country to take?

And @EasternStandard , since you raise the point of women and children left in the lurch by that new policy, you surely agree with me that what NF said about sending Afghan women BACK to the Taliban to get essentially murdered by them (or some other grisly fate) was at best unconscionable? I think it was a despicable statement. He's the one who said it, nothing to do with Labour.

How on earth are the women and children left behind in Afghanistan supposed to get out even if their husbands do eventually have their asylum application granted? Women in Afghanistan have zero rights, they cannot go outside of their door without a male family member. They are not allowed to speak in public. You think the Taliban are going to invite them to their office and give them documents to safely travel to the UK? Women are starving to death having been abandoned by their husbands and othe male family members and left unable to work and earn money.

Population when I was born = 55 million. Population now, officially in region of 70, unofficially by calculations based on groceries consumed and sewage produced 80 million.

You are being pathetically pedantic anyway. It is a highly significant demographic change bringing cultural influences resulting in ‘British’ politicians who have more interest in Gaza than in the troubles of ex-mining towns of Britain’s central belt.

Before you start with the other whataboutery, Britain is overpopulated and we are not to blame for the inability of other nation’s men to control their population nor to understand ecology.

Ok it appears you are more understanding of Labour stopping safe routes for women and children as they might lose support otherwise. Fair enough I wondered how politically based the arguments were.

There are sadly ever fewer opportunities for Afghan women and children to come here. I said quite clearly that I do not think Labour should close down the routes still available to them - have you missed that part of my post? I CAN imagine that the reason they are doing it is because of the baying hordes outside the hotels and the 000s of articles in tabloids. In my view, they should not want to out-Reform Reform. No.
Why have you not replied to my question? Do you agree that NF's statement about sending BACK Afghan women and children seeking asylum here is despicable? How on earth do you justify that? And stop trying to divert the argument onto Labour. This has nothing to do with Labour and 100% to do with Farage's own promises regarding Reform's agenda should they get into power.

It's happening due to Labour running scared of Reform and pandering to them. Which is very regrettable; but the ultimate cause is Reform and similar groups.

There are 14.2 million women in Afghanistan. 6 million in South Sudan. 16 million in Yemen. 3 million in the Central African Republic. And those are just the very worst places to be female - not all the places where women's human rights are routinely violated... Eritrea, Bangladesh, Iran, Syria, Albania....

Tens of millions of women - uneducated, and needing financial support their whole Iives if they come to the UK. How do you think the 13.7 million UK households who actually pay more tax than they recieve in benefits - or more realistically, the just 8 million people who pay more in tax than their per-person share of state services - can possibly fund that?

We have this ridiculous situation where half the world would fulfil our conditions for claiming asylum, and the only barrier to a fully supported life in the UK is getting here. People trafficker heaven.

It's a nonsense, and it can't continue. This is not what the asylum system was designed for, and it's remit needs to fundamentally change. Afghan women can't come to the UK just because life is awful there.

If we got Asylum seekers down to Denmatk levels - eg low hundereds per year, then maybe the £4billion we spend on Asylum seekers each year - including fighting spurious legal appeals - could be used to provide more widespread help to those 10s of millions of women, in the form of the foreign aid it was intended for. That £4billion which we currently spend on granting asylum to 70 thousand people per year could for example instead subsidise the living costs of around 15 million people who are living in poverty in their own country (by doubling the income of those living on the poverty line, which is approximately 1USD per day)

Politicians always have a choice though. I think Corbyn / Polanski will avoid doing similar and might pick up those who don’t want those policies.

Err we aren't talking about accepting all women, just not sending back the tiny minority who make it here or who have in the past.

Remember, Farage will deport anyone here, whenever they arrived, whatever their circumstance.

He also wants to pay the Taliban....

I am going to get obliterated for this view, however, I do not feel that the responsibility of Afghan women and children is on us (the UK) as a country alone. It ought to be a global approach. I would much rather see the UK prioritise issues closer to home first. I’m sorry.

We were in their country for 21 years and then abandoned them. We need to take responsibility.

What do you mean exactly in their country and abandoned them?

I mean what I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)

Please don’t send me a Wikipedia link - actually answer my question with your own words and thoughts… 😂

I don’t have the time. Read the link.

Sorry… don’t have the time

Stay ignorant then. It’s no skin off my nose.

Stay passive aggressive as well, no skin off mine. Will disengage from you now as you’ve no time to add anything more to your comments.

There are many “safe” countries that asylum seekers can enter. They come to the UK because the UK is too soft and welcomes them with open arms. We are being exploited as a country.