Reform party

[TalkToTheHand123]

Will Reform win any votes at the local elections?

Why do failed asylum seekers need to be housed in the Balkans?

I don’t know why you’d do this, is my view so far. What’s the reason for it?

I think it’s important to remember that some people can be ignorant without being wilfully ignorant. Times are tough right now and a lot of people are looking to others for answers, it might just so have happened she heard someone else’s point of view and believed it before she heard your point of view. If she had been addressed differently she might have found out some new information and changed her point of view. But that will never ever happen in a dog pile where she’s been jabbed at instead of spoken with.

We also push people away from conversation when we respond harshly and if we want people to grow and there to be less divisiveness then we want conversations as much as possible!

Don’t forget the feeding on bread and water. Unheated accommodation and sewage from the camps directly pumped out to sea…

I disagree on a couple of points. Firstly I think this thread did start with sensible challenges and alternative points of view. It didn’t take long for the op to reveal their real views (or the agenda for this whole thread as some might think).

and secondly, those views were not, in my view, predicated on a lack of information or knowledge. They were harsh, uncaring, nasty.

I broadly agree with you that it’s better to discuss and educate than simply slate someone, however there comes a point when a bigot must simply be called a bigot

You repeat a lie often enough the hard of thinking eventually believe it.

That’s why we have (the foreign owned) Geebeebies, and their viewers will lap up whatever nonsense they’re spoon fed, and won’t actually care if it’s incorrect, accurate or fair.

And here we are.

If you can't send them back to their country of origin, where would they go instead? Stay in the UK?

The Balkans are a safe option.

It’s barely below benefit levels for UK residents. We don’t then recommend cash in hand work and benefit fraud to UK residents so we should recommend it to asylum seekers.

I agree that benefits and the money given to asylum seekers equates to poor living standards.

I think what she’s trying to say is that she wants the UK to be as unappealing and unhelpful to others desiring entry so that they don’t come. I don’t think she genuinely wants people to eat bread and water, and live in tents. She definitely should have worded that better to express her perspective because obviously no one deserves to live off of bread and water.

You’ve said failed asylum seekers. Ie it’s been determined they are not at risk of being persecuted in their home country.

In any case are you suggesting the U.K. houses people in the Balkans for an unlimited amount of time? How do you deal with that as more people will be sent daily.

When we only have what a poster says their opinions are, why would we not assume that is their opinion?

when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

It is my understanding that it is different from the Tories' Rwanda scheme as the only people who will be sent overseas are those whose asylum claims have been rejected.

However, I have a gap in my own understanding with regards to why those people cannot be deported back to their home countries instead. I'm sure that they're is probably a valid reason for this, and I would be grateful if someone could explain it to me, but I don't understand it at present.

If we are saying that it is not safe for them to go back to their home countries, then I cannot understand why we are not granting them asylum. And if it is safe for them to return and we have determined that they have no legal right to be here, I'm not sure why we would need to send them to a third country.

But I accept that there may well be reasons why we can't do this, and in that case, a third country may or may not be reasonable. I would need to understand the proposals more before passing judgment.

That’s what I don’t fully understand about this proposal too. I’m open to have someone explain it

If the idea is to keep failed asylum seekers indefinitely in hubs then they will quickly become overwhelmed.

If the plan is to move them back to home country after some time then they may as well go earlier without a sojourn in the Balkans.

This is sometimes true but not always. I live in an area with very high levels of immigrants, including asylum seekers and Muslims (I mention muslims specifically as they are constantly being demonised). However, I see no problems in my community because it is not deprived. People genuinely do seem to get on. I see no tensions, I see people from all immigrant communities integrating. There is no rabid anti-immigrants or anti-Muslim feeling here. My children school us nearly 70% ethnic minorities abd the kids get on brilliantly. My children have friends from all faiths and races. This is why I raise my eyebrows when people say multiculturalism isn't working and people aren't integrating because it's not what I see. I see the opposite, in fact.
Conversely, in my home town, where I no longer live (a very deprived seaside town) there is huge anti-immigrant, anti-muslim feeling. Everyone keeps going on about voting Reform. Interestingly, There are barely any immigrants there. Barely any brown people, no asylum seekers that I know of. Yet people are furious because their lives are shit and they're told that all their problems are due to people on boats.
I really see the issue being one of poverty and massive inequality, rather than exposure to immigrants.

You can do that but it’s not helpful to getting somewhere with the conversation. I’m working class, my friends (mostly) are, there’s a real struggle at the moment and people are looking for answers as to why. On top of that some people dislike the mass import of other cultures or the religion of Islam for example. I think that a lot of people who are normally nice and reasonable people are getting too harsh over the topic of immigration and the like because they are so unhappy with the impacts of it. I think it’s helpful to every side if we talk about it reasonably and with an understanding attitude rather than labels.

I also really despise dog piling and think that most people wouldn’t take part in it if it were in person but most are so happy to be the 20th person to jump on a thread and throw a jab at one person.

You can obviously say whatever you like to whoever you like but that’s just my two pence.

Going back to the Balkans idea could this be for the people who arrive without papers?

Failed asylum seekers can still be at risk in their home country.

The plans are still being developed so I will wait for further details before I can suggest anything like you are asking. I am not the home office.

I don’t think people without papers are automatically failed though?

It’s only those who fail to get asylum.

are You actually saying that it’s better for the conversation to assume that someone doesn’t mean what they are saying, and you should instead make assumption on what they really meant and engage them on that? Surely not.

No, for people who have been processed.

The hubs are meant to be 'return hubs' which means that they're where failed asylum seekers are housed until agreements are made with their country to send them home.

Some countries are deemed unsafe such as Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia and people from there will be sent to the hubs as they can't be sent back.

The problem for Labour is that this looks like indefinite detention for some, will be illegal and cost a fortune.

@SallyWD inequality is at the heart of all this, but unfortunately the right wing press in the UK has made dealing with inequality impossible. They sell the perception that if you're rich, it's because you have worked hard and you deserve it and you should have tax breaks and more money, whilst if you are poor, it's because you aren't working hard, aren't trying and should have money taken away from you. And if you're ill or disabled - well, a workhouse would be too good for you.

We're being sold a third rate version of the American Dream, and people still fall for it. People want inequality. It allows them to look down on others.

I completely agree with you on this, the last line in particular. Plus it just won’t be possible unless they keep adding hubs.

But on it’s not safe to go back, why wouldn’t they be granted asylum if that’s the case?

An asylum application may be rejected but regardless we do not have returns arrangements with countries like Iran or Somalia.

Regardless any would-be policy is at a very early stage.

The Times indicates that wont be until much later in the year.

Very little point trying to second guess it now.

In answer the the original OP and their opening post

No; although reform have a certain amount of popularity, there are far far too many voters that see them as the charlatans that they are.

The quality of the reform candidates put forward for local elections has been somewhat dodgy to say the least. To think that people are going to trust these type of candidates to actually improve local governance is slim. How’s Farage done in Clacton? He’s been off kissing Trumps arse for months now doing bugger all actual work

The GE last year will probably represent their peak. They’re already haemorrhaging internally; I support tommeh/tommeh is an idiot etc.

Several million voted for them. But that’s never going to be enough to do anything but snipe from the sidelines, stir up division and probably little else.

They have no answers, and their “policies” (lol) will only create more problems.

The average voter understands this, and is more than intelligent enough not to swallow the snake oil. Populism is simple answers to complex problems as the OP brilliantly displays. So no, reform will not succeed in taking many seats at the locals.

The average Brit is thankfully too intelligent and compassionate let that happen.

And your lived experience is so valid but it’s not everyone’s experience. I personally had very close friends who were muslim that have had terrible experiences in the religion but were unable to leave. I knew one girl who had to fight to be brought back to England after her parents left her in their home country. I’ve also had friends who love their religion as Muslims, are strong believers and are very positive about their faith. Lived experiences vary so much.

I do agree that immigration is being used as a scapegoat in some instances so we don’t start looking at other people like the wealth hoarders (buts that’s another convo). I feel like for some people it’s the difficult times financially but for others it’s problems with culture and religion and other things that come along with high levels of immigration.

I think multiculturalism works and is very healthy when it’s done correctly. I would also say some people are uncomfortable with the culture that comes with Islam that is growing incredibly fast and dominating areas. I think those are valid concerns, especially when it comes to women or LGBT for example. I’m Christian for example and I have been so loud about religion and law needing to be very clearly separate (even though this was/ is maybe a Christian country) because I have concerns about if Islam was the predominant religion that we would have influences on our laws. Sharia law for example, I do not like it but if you look at the stats an alarming amount of Muslims in the UK think we should have it formalised within our system. I’m just saying that those are things we should consider. Especially due to mass immigration and birth rate stats across different cultures.

I think it’s good to say my lived experience of multiculturalism is positive but also accept that for others they don’t have good experiences and so they might be reform supports because of that.

I read a booklet with stats about muslims in the Uk and a bunch of things recently, if I can find it I’ll link you it if you would like?

No but context is important. I could understand what she was trying to say, not because I agreed with her, but because I could see the point she was getting to. Like the bread and water thing.

Engaging with her in a manner of dog piling and snipey comments was ridiculous. No one was having genuine conversation, it was like watching people trying to get a gotcha moment. Like I said, you can say whatever you like but my opinion is that the way she was being approached was unhelpful, rude and getting uncomfortable because of the 20 v 1 situation.