Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?

[Vanden Saab]

911hope said:

Dave200 said:

People aren't supporting Reform for strong monetary policy.

They are supporting for one or a mix of:
- Sticking it to the Tories
- Never Labour, but fed up with the Tories
- Fed up with the Tories, but buying the anti-Labour propaganda
- Continuation of support for Brexit (and any future "taking back control")
- The cult of personality around Farage
- Reform's continuous focus on (the wrong parts of) our immigration problem
- Because they are easily led when it comes to the magic money tree

In a nutshell..

Sadly.......Most of them won't even know what reform are actually saying.

Copy/pasted direct from the Brexit thread. Not a single new point after 8 years. Just the tired old tropes that didn't work then and are working even less now.
The strange thing is that you educated younger people will not even realise how you have been the architects of the thing you despise the most until it is too late

[Xenoous]

Dave200 said:

50,000 isn't actually the number either, but don't let that stop you.

Small boats are not a problem of immigration. They are a rounding error in terms of the number of people who come to the UK every year.

The small boat crossings are something which could (and should) be tackled by a sustained, cross-border police investigation. Sadly that would require close collaboration with the same people that Nige the Liar persuaded 51% of voters to stick two fingers up a few years back.

Whether the number is 1 or 1,000,000. It's too many.

Because of course this isn't happening in Europe, either. Those cross-border police must be on strike.

[Dave200]

Olivera said:

Dave200 said:

Current costing is estimated at £1.3bn a year.

It's not costing £1.3bn per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68613186

The National Audit Office states: "the Home Office still expects to spend £3.1bn on private accommodation in the year up to March 2024.".

That's just accommodation, so you need to add on welfare, legal, translation, health spending on top.

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

[Vasco]

Dave200 said:

I find it curious that there's so much (misplaced) emphasis on "small boats" from Reform supporters, but none of them seem willing to back Labour who pledge to stop them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-lea...

Of course Labour are also planning to deal with the actual immigration problems, rather than just standing on a cliff and pointing at the boats as evidence of a broken immigration system.

So, the big pledge from Starmer to the small boats issue is to work with our foreign colleagues. How is that different to the current arrangement ?

[the-photographer]

Dave200 said:

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Its the home office versus the audit office. I used this source https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/fac...

[Dave200]

Vasco said:

Dave200 said:

I find it curious that there's so much (misplaced) emphasis on "small boats" from Reform supporters, but none of them seem willing to back Labour who pledge to stop them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-lea...

Of course Labour are also planning to deal with the actual immigration problems, rather than just standing on a cliff and pointing at the boats as evidence of a broken immigration system.

So, the big pledge from Starmer to the small boats issue is to work with our foreign colleagues. How is that different to the current arrangement ?

What are Reform specifically offering by way of solution that makes you so much more confident in voting for them?

[valiant]

Olivera said:

It's not costing £1.3bn per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68613186

The National Audit Office states: "the Home Office still expects to spend £3.1bn on private accommodation in the year up to March 2024.".

That's just accommodation, so you need to add on welfare, legal, translation, health spending on top.

Well as the majority qualify for asylum status when they are eventually processed shouldn't the onus be on how they are processed rather than the amount?

Remind me again who slowed down the whole process, who has weaponized the entire st show in order to gaslight the dense of thinking?

[valiant]

Dave200 said:

What are Reform specifically offering by way of solution that makes you so much more confident in voting for them?

ThEY'Ll SeNd Them BaCK!!!

No details on how of course and what the french will do when ferries start disembarking at Calais but it'll be someone else's fault regardless and deffo not Nige's

[Vasco]

Dave200 said:

Vasco said:

Dave200 said:

I find it curious that there's so much (misplaced) emphasis on "small boats" from Reform supporters, but none of them seem willing to back Labour who pledge to stop them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-lea...

Of course Labour are also planning to deal with the actual immigration problems, rather than just standing on a cliff and pointing at the boats as evidence of a broken immigration system.

So, the big pledge from Starmer to the small boats issue is to work with our foreign colleagues. How is that different to the current arrangement ?

What are Reform specifically offering by way of solution that makes you so much more confident in voting for them?

....erm....

I wasn't querying what Reform would do - and have no intention of voting for them, so have no idea where you get all that from.

My query related to Starmer's expectation of working with our foreign colleagues.

[Tom8]

DeejRC said:

Labour/anti-Tory supporters delirious with glee at being able to point to another party about their “magic money tree” policies…
Oh how the world chortles merrily
Farage et al don’t need to have joined up economic policies for the same reason nobody cared much about the LD economic manifesto - everybody knows they will never be able to implement. It’s the free shot that the 3rd opposition party gets.
I’m not hugely convinced SKS will put taxes up too soon either. I suspect there will be 12months before he does. The IFS, their £35bn black hole and all those others who think their “needs” to be tax rises, “they” simply don’t understand that the country can’t really afford it atm. The SMEs etc have only just finished accommodating the 7% rise BoJo and Rishi hit us with. The employed sector has only just completed the salary rises/cost of living rises/fiscal drag cycle to rebalance their domestic economics. SKS is dull, but he is a competent manager, he has a decent grasp on what he can/can’t do at any one time and the slowly slowly approach. He and Reeves know full well they haven’t the headroom to change much, because the country hasn’t.

The economic (growth) plan from both Labour and the Conservatives is the same. Do nothing. There is slow growth and there is fiscal drag in the tax system so just carry on as we are and the tax take will grow and so will growth albeit slowly.

I agree that in a year or two, that will then be accelerated by the usual tax rises until, as is tradition, we run out of everyone else's money again, true Labour stylee.

[s1962a]

valiant said:

Remind me again who slowed down the whole process, who has weaponized the entire st show in order to gaslight the dense of thinking?

Yeah but if you made the process efficient, this would be a smaller issue than the 600k legal net migration, mostly from India and China. Why would you want people to ask questions about that??

[smn159]

President Merkin said:

Olivera said:

GDP is not government spending. Very odd that you would quote GDP.

£5-10bn is the equivalent to about half of the entire policing budget in 2024 for England, or the entire budget of The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It's a significant amount given our squeezed public spending and deficit. Hence why even Starmer agrees that this number needs reduced.

No one is saying it's a small number. Lots that it's not as big as you think it is, but you are choosing to ignore them. That's your business but if you have a bit of self awareness, you might want to consider how you got there. Otherwise, crack on.

To put it into context - About the same as the money wasted by the government on a single PPE contract

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cll476qzm85o

[PurplePenguin]

Dave200 said:

Olivera said:

Dave200 said:

Current costing is estimated at £1.3bn a year.

It's not costing £1.3bn per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68613186

The National Audit Office states: "the Home Office still expects to spend £3.1bn on private accommodation in the year up to March 2024.".

That's just accommodation, so you need to add on welfare, legal, translation, health spending on top.

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Because government “plans” always work. It will be very interesting to revisit in a year to see how Labour will have sorted illegal immigration.

[Vanden Saab]

Vasco said:

Dave200 said:

I find it curious that there's so much (misplaced) emphasis on "small boats" from Reform supporters, but none of them seem willing to back Labour who pledge to stop them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-lea...

Of course Labour are also planning to deal with the actual immigration problems, rather than just standing on a cliff and pointing at the boats as evidence of a broken immigration system.

So, the big pledge from Starmer to the small boats issue is to work with our foreign colleagues. How is that different to the current arrangement ?

It is not. It is just a sop to the white knights who think anything bar taking them back or sending them somewhere else when they arrive will actually work.
You only have to look at the resources the EU has and their abject failure to do anything about the smugglers to understand that.

[Murph7355]

Dave200 said:

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Sounds like you seem to be suggesting voting Labour for similar reason to those you tabled earlier.

[Mr Penguin]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/refor...

Twenty-two Reform candidates have been found to have expressed sympathies for Putin, according to The Mail on Sunday.

These include Jonathan Mappin, a Farage ally, who said: “Being friends with Putin is very smart. We love him.” He added that President Zelensky was “murderous” and forced “every Nato citizen … to fund his Nazi operations”.

I can see why they don't suspend their candidates after saying this stuff because they'd have none left.

[Dave200]

Murph7355 said:

Dave200 said:

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Sounds like you seem to be suggesting voting Labour for similar reason to those you tabled earlier.

"I'm voting Reform, lol".

This is grown-up political discourse at its finest.

[Dave200]

PurplePenguin said:

Dave200 said:

Olivera said:

Dave200 said:

Current costing is estimated at £1.3bn a year.

It's not costing £1.3bn per year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68613186

The National Audit Office states: "the Home Office still expects to spend £3.1bn on private accommodation in the year up to March 2024.".

That's just accommodation, so you need to add on welfare, legal, translation, health spending on top.

Looks like the numbers I found were wrong.

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Because government “plans” always work. It will be very interesting to revisit in a year to see how Labour will have sorted illegal immigration.

And if Labour don't succeed, I'd expect them to be judged against that failure at the next election. That's how politics works.

Unless you're a Reform voter, it seems. I'm still waiting for someone here to explain the specifics of Reform's plan for immigration and boat people that has won them over. I feel like I might be waiting a while here.

[Olivera]

Dave200 said:

So should I assume you'll be voting Labour, who have a plan to tackle immigration numbers AND the (completely unrelated) problem of "small boats"?

Yes I intend to, as the current government is an incompetent busted flush.

Having said that I don't see current very high immigration numbers as being in any way compatible with a leftist political stance, so I'd like to see it significantly reduced.

[don'tbesilly]

Vanden Saab said:

Vasco said:

Dave200 said:

I find it curious that there's so much (misplaced) emphasis on "small boats" from Reform supporters, but none of them seem willing to back Labour who pledge to stop them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-lea...

Of course Labour are also planning to deal with the actual immigration problems, rather than just standing on a cliff and pointing at the boats as evidence of a broken immigration system.

So, the big pledge from Starmer to the small boats issue is to work with our foreign colleagues. How is that different to the current arrangement ?

It is not. It is just a sop to the white knights who think anything bar taking them back or sending them somewhere else when they arrive will actually work.
You only have to look at the resources the EU has and their abject failure to do anything about the smugglers to understand that.

Labour will just sign up to the EU immigration pact, so instead of anything between 30-40k arrivals across the Channel, it will be 100,000+ legally + 100’s/1000’s still arriving across the channel after dodging the half ar*ed attempts to be caught by the gendarmes who are waving them off on the beaches.