Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Why do people like reform?

1000 replies

TheGoogleMum · 02/05/2025 09:23

I haven't been keeping very up to date with politics. I usually vote Labour. I don't really understand the popularity of reform, could anyone explain it to me?
As far as I'm aware Farage doesn't actually do anything when he wins a seat somewhere so I'm not convinced they'll actually do anything? Is it just a protest vote that's gone a bit far?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:27

suburburban · 11/05/2025 16:22

I didn't think the Rwanda idea was bad tbh or some offshore detention centres. I know it’s not easy

The reason Rwanda didn't work was because of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that it violated the principle of non refoulement. That means that they couldn't be sure Rwandan authorities wouldn't send people back to countries where they could be persecuted.

An option is to build large detention centres in the UK while claims are processed. It would be very expensive but it would stop people complaining about hotels being used.

suburburban · 11/05/2025 16:28

Shame. Let’s face it many of them are economic.

EasternStandard · 11/05/2025 16:29

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:27

The reason Rwanda didn't work was because of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that it violated the principle of non refoulement. That means that they couldn't be sure Rwandan authorities wouldn't send people back to countries where they could be persecuted.

An option is to build large detention centres in the UK while claims are processed. It would be very expensive but it would stop people complaining about hotels being used.

That was overridden by legislation. It had the go ahead but then we had the GE and Starmer pulled it.

Jackrussellsaremad · 11/05/2025 16:30

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:27

The reason Rwanda didn't work was because of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that it violated the principle of non refoulement. That means that they couldn't be sure Rwandan authorities wouldn't send people back to countries where they could be persecuted.

An option is to build large detention centres in the UK while claims are processed. It would be very expensive but it would stop people complaining about hotels being used.

The Rwanda scheme was never actually used. Labour immediately cancelled it without anything to go in its place. So it's a counter factual to say it "didn't work".

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:33

suburburban · 11/05/2025 16:28

Shame. Let’s face it many of them are economic.

Yes some are economic. For example we had a lot of Albanians coming to the UK for economic reasons. However we reached an agreement with Albania and now very few come.

A major problem is the time it takes to process claims. That would take a lot of investment to resolve because there's a huge backlog and you need to process claims according to the law.

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:34

Jackrussellsaremad · 11/05/2025 16:30

The Rwanda scheme was never actually used. Labour immediately cancelled it without anything to go in its place. So it's a counter factual to say it "didn't work".

The Rwandan scheme was found to be illegal.

EasternStandard · 11/05/2025 16:36

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:34

The Rwandan scheme was found to be illegal.

It was overridden by legislation. Maybe you missed that update.

Jackrussellsaremad · 11/05/2025 16:40

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:34

The Rwandan scheme was found to be illegal.

No it was finally ready to go, all the legislation completed. And then Labour cancelled it. Now the crossings have increased.

suburburban · 11/05/2025 16:41

Perhaps the law needs to change, something does as it’s too much

Jackrussellsaremad · 11/05/2025 16:41

suburburban · 11/05/2025 16:41

Perhaps the law needs to change, something does as it’s too much

We've got another 4 years of this unfortunately.

snughugs · 11/05/2025 16:42

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 15:57

Who said that asylum seekers are all poor and uneducated? Asylum seekers are people fleeing persecution and people flee irrespective of their educational level.

They make up a tiny percentage of immigration yet you seem completely fixated on them. You seem to believe that asylum seekers are taking over the whole country. Yet there are nearly 70m people in the UK and they barely register.

What you're suggesting about the navy spending their time processing people and taking them back to their countries isn't feasible. First you can't send people back to a place where they could be in danger, second it would cost a lot of money and third, it would take a long time and fourth, they have rights under the law.

Detention centres would also be very expensive as they need to be staffed and run. I believe Starmer was looking at holding centres abroad but am not sure if anything has been found that's suitable.

I said they’re poor and uneducated. A Dr or PhD can come in through the legal routes. If they’ve got money why are we keeping them in hotels? Again they’d find a way in to this country legally by business.

Whatever way you look at it for 50% of all social housing in London to be first generation immigrants would suggest a lot of eligible poor migrants coming in. This is reflected throughout the country.

Here’s your top ten of countries on boats. There’s no wars going on in some of these countries.

  1. Iran
  2. Albania
  3. Iraq
  4. Afghanistan
  5. Eritrea
  6. Syria
  7. Sudan
  8. Bangladesh
  9. India
  10. Pakistan

Yes other immigrants come over we have to deal with dodgy universities.

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:57

Jackrussellsaremad · 11/05/2025 16:40

No it was finally ready to go, all the legislation completed. And then Labour cancelled it. Now the crossings have increased.

That's not strictly true because the new legislation was very dodgy.

The new bill declared that Rwanda was a safe country, despite evidence to the contrary. It also substantially limited the ability to challenge relocation to Rwanda.

The new legislation wasn't challenged because it was discarded when Labour came in. It was quite a strange piece of legislation where you had to prove that you would be persecuted in Rwanda.

I've no idea why people continue to support that white elephant.

PocketSand · 11/05/2025 16:59

A little bit of historical understanding would go a long way. Do you think that the poor and disenfranchised were suddenly made all powerful and decided that immigration was the way to go? Do you think that governments of all colours believed that decimating indigenous labour and outsourcing was the way to go? Do you think multinational companies lobbied government to export and import labour to increase profit? Do you think that decreasing import and export of labour will impact profit? What’s the end game?

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 17:03

snughugs · 11/05/2025 16:42

I said they’re poor and uneducated. A Dr or PhD can come in through the legal routes. If they’ve got money why are we keeping them in hotels? Again they’d find a way in to this country legally by business.

Whatever way you look at it for 50% of all social housing in London to be first generation immigrants would suggest a lot of eligible poor migrants coming in. This is reflected throughout the country.

Here’s your top ten of countries on boats. There’s no wars going on in some of these countries.

  1. Iran
  2. Albania
  3. Iraq
  4. Afghanistan
  5. Eritrea
  6. Syria
  7. Sudan
  8. Bangladesh
  9. India
  10. Pakistan

Yes other immigrants come over we have to deal with dodgy universities.

@snughugs

You seem very confused. An asylum seeker is someone fleeing a well founded fear of persecution. They don't have to come from a war zone to seek asylum.

A university lecturer for example, who speaks out against a particular government, could seek asylum in a different country. They're not uneducated.

Do you have any evidence that every immigrant in social housing in London is a refugee? It's not reflected throughout the country as the demographic of London is not reflected throughout the country.

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 17:06

PocketSand · 11/05/2025 16:59

A little bit of historical understanding would go a long way. Do you think that the poor and disenfranchised were suddenly made all powerful and decided that immigration was the way to go? Do you think that governments of all colours believed that decimating indigenous labour and outsourcing was the way to go? Do you think multinational companies lobbied government to export and import labour to increase profit? Do you think that decreasing import and export of labour will impact profit? What’s the end game?

You need to start with Thatcher and work your way forward. Business obviously favours cheap labour either here or abroad. Neo Liberalism doesn't work for anyone but the wealthy.

EasternStandard · 11/05/2025 17:55

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:57

That's not strictly true because the new legislation was very dodgy.

The new bill declared that Rwanda was a safe country, despite evidence to the contrary. It also substantially limited the ability to challenge relocation to Rwanda.

The new legislation wasn't challenged because it was discarded when Labour came in. It was quite a strange piece of legislation where you had to prove that you would be persecuted in Rwanda.

I've no idea why people continue to support that white elephant.

You’re not posting correct info. That’s why people respond on it.

dottiehens · 11/05/2025 21:58

Labour voters never understand why people vote anything but Labour.

BIossomtoes · 12/05/2025 08:20

dottiehens · 11/05/2025 21:58

Labour voters never understand why people vote anything but Labour.

Oh I think we do.

Jackrussellsaremad · 12/05/2025 08:38

BIossomtoes · 12/05/2025 08:20

Oh I think we do.

No you don't. You just think you do.

BIossomtoes · 12/05/2025 08:47

Jackrussellsaremad · 12/05/2025 08:38

No you don't. You just think you do.

That’s what I said. 😂

Jackrussellsaremad · 12/05/2025 09:00

BIossomtoes · 12/05/2025 08:47

That’s what I said. 😂

Ok yes fair enough 🤣.

I'm amazed if I ever read the Guardian how they get things so wrong regarding how Conservatives voters (or anyone slightly right of centre) think. The Guardian often spins a big story in their head about how they "think" Conservatives think and then argue against it.

They did it with Brexit (racist, stupid, didn't know what they were voting for) and then argued against their own assumptions..It was ridiculous to read but not a huge surprise. It's like the left live in a little bubble where they are unable to see a person with a different view to them as to how the UK should be run economically (which is what Brexit essentially boiled down to) without calling them monumental racists and being rude about their character.

Same as Trump voters (not that I like Trump but I do see how the left wind up the people they need to persuade). Hillary Clinton alienated half the electorate due to being unable to seperate a person from their voting intention and insulting the person's character rather than making the argument on the issues.

Its such a superficial approach. You can see why the Guardian's readership is so tiny. You don't get much sense from it.

snughugs · 12/05/2025 09:08

Kier Stammer on TV. Wonder if the labour fans will be pleased at these reforms. Not long ago you were racist and it’s our government fault for not building on every piece of green/brown land to provide social housing for poor migrants. May be Keir is realising it’s unsustainable or just Reform will get an easy win next election.

Basically more educated immigrants and expects them to speak the language. What a joke bringing in foreigners to work in Care Homes. We have plenty unemployed here, yeah they don’t want to work, they’d rather claim PIP.

Jackrussellsaremad · 12/05/2025 09:13

snughugs · 12/05/2025 09:08

Kier Stammer on TV. Wonder if the labour fans will be pleased at these reforms. Not long ago you were racist and it’s our government fault for not building on every piece of green/brown land to provide social housing for poor migrants. May be Keir is realising it’s unsustainable or just Reform will get an easy win next election.

Basically more educated immigrants and expects them to speak the language. What a joke bringing in foreigners to work in Care Homes. We have plenty unemployed here, yeah they don’t want to work, they’d rather claim PIP.

That did make me laugh. That Labour are now doing what they would have pilloried the Conservatives for. Maybe it can only happen that way though. On the basis we all presumably want the UK to improve we do want Labour to succeed and they are doing certain things that the Conservatives would simply be politically unable to do.

EasternStandard · 12/05/2025 09:20

snughugs · 12/05/2025 09:08

Kier Stammer on TV. Wonder if the labour fans will be pleased at these reforms. Not long ago you were racist and it’s our government fault for not building on every piece of green/brown land to provide social housing for poor migrants. May be Keir is realising it’s unsustainable or just Reform will get an easy win next election.

Basically more educated immigrants and expects them to speak the language. What a joke bringing in foreigners to work in Care Homes. We have plenty unemployed here, yeah they don’t want to work, they’d rather claim PIP.

Of course. The hypocrisy is too much.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Reform polls. Labour seem to be panicking not sure it’ll work.

Goldenbear · 12/05/2025 10:17

Maitri108 · 11/05/2025 16:07

I see the complaint all the time that Reform supporters get shut down and called racist. They just want a calm and reasonable discussion. I'm having a calm and reasonable discussion.

You are definitely wasting your time on the permanently offended, right wing ragers!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.