Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

And of course I did acknowledge the cost in my post. I think there are really two separate issues here: 1. Is it, in principle, a good idea to house asylum seekers in any additional accommodation that can be quickly made available (such as boats)? A: Yes, obviously it is a good idea in principle. 2. How much should it cost to convert a boat to house people semi-permanently and is the Government paying a sensible amount? A: The amount looks absurd, so something seems to have gone wrong there. Not atypical for stuff the Government does to cost absurdly high amounts, so the problem here probably has more to do with how the Government evaluates and awards contracts than with immigration policy.

It would, almost certainly, be cheaper overall to simply process applications faster - no need to find housing for ever-increasing numbers of people and those whose applications are successful can be economically active, those who are denied status can be deported.

 

[Gloster]

It would, almost certainly, be cheaper overall to simply process applications faster - no need to find housing for ever-increasing numbers of people and those whose applications are successful can be economically active, those who are denied status can be deported.

The problem with that is the fear by politicians of taking on people to do a job and then having them idle after they have done it, even though the situation may well come in waves and they will be needed again before long. ‘Do nothing’ is preferred to solving the problem if that results in having to pay surplus staff.

 

[BrianW]

I

The problem with that is the fear by politicians of taking on people to do a job and then having them idle after they have done it, even though the situation may well come in waves and they will be needed again before long. ‘Do nothing’ is preferred to solving the problem if that results in having to pay surplus staff.

Is that not what Serco, G4S, Capita, Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC, Adecco, Hays, Reed, Pertemps, Zero Hours/short term/ temporary 'contracts' etc are there for? No shortage of firms to 'cash in' IF there people available to do this unpleasant job and the price is right!

 

[Gloster]

I

Is that not what Serco, G4S, Capita, Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC, Adecco, Hays, Reed, Pertemps, Zero Hours/short term/ temporary 'contracts' etc are there for? No shortage of firms to 'cash in' IF there people available to do this unpleasant job and the price is right!

Which results in poorly paid, inadequately trained and unmotivated staff doing the job; there has been quite a turnover of staff amongst those that have been employed, so a lack of continuity. This results in errors leading to more delays, legal changes and costs; it also leads to a considerably increased risk of genuine cases being sent back to their deaths. However, it does see lots of tax-payers money going to Crapita, et al., so some will see it as job done.

 

[Enthusiast]

This part of the discussion arose when the current government's approach to immigration was described as "hard line."

I think, therefore, we need to separate legal immigration (where people apply to come here and permission is granted in advance of their arrival) with those seeking asylum, who arrive uninvited without leave. The former is of a magnitude greater than the latter and it was the former I was referring to when I questioned the term "hard line" was appropriate when applied to the current government.

I cannot possibly understand how that term can be applied to a government which has granted permission for the thick end of one million people to settle here annually over the last five years.

Asylum is a different issue. The features of the "hard line" that have been cited are wind and puff.

Rwanda - has not begun and it is very unlikely that any significant numbers will be removed under its terms (I actually think it will be close to zero).

"Stop the Boats" - looks nice on the front of a lectern with Mr Sunak pontification from behind it. But it also hasn't happened. And unless the boats are physically prevented from landing here - either by stopping them leaving France or turning them back before they get here (neither of which is likely) - they will continue to come. And once here the new arrivals will be fed and watered, provided with pocket money and comfortable - in some cases luxurious - accommodation. They also know that once they have set foot in the UK the chances of them being removed - to Rwanda or anywhere else - are remote in the extreme, whether or not their claims for asylum are successful.

Housing asylum seekers in dodgy ships? There is one barge (not a ship) securely moored in Portland Harbour. Considering its residents have been living under tarpaulins in northern France, it cannot, comparatively, be seen as "dodgy." Those housed there have leisure facilities and their own medical centre, including a GP service, available on site:

Bibby Stockholm update from the Multi Agency Forum - Dorset Council news

This is a joint update from the subgroups that feed into the Multi Agency Forum (MAF), which supports operational planning of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland. The MAF consists of representatives from the Home Office, Dorset Council, Portland Town Council, Weymouth Town Council, Dorset...

news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

It was converted especially for the purpose of accommodation and was used by Germany and Holland to house asylum seekers many years ago before being used by construction companies to house their workers. An Irish University considered it for use as student accommodation. It seems it was perfectly suitable for those uses, but for people arriving here uninvited in huge numbers and for whom the UK has to find emergency and unplanned accommodation, it is apparently not good enough.

There is a world of difference between the seemingly "hard line" ramblings of politicians and reality. Frankly, with "hard line" policies such as these, it is little wonder people are risking their lives to get here. Mr Sunak and his fellow "hard-liners" talk a good talk, but they have not yet learned to walk the walk.

 

[najaB]

Housing asylum seekers in dodgy ships? There is one barge (not a ship) securely moored in Portland Harbour.

Note, however, this wasn't the original plan. Under the original plan there would have been cruise ships moored in several ports, but the Government failed to negotiate the berth space before acquiring the ships:

Controversial plans to house asylum seekers on redundant cruise ships have been thrown into disarray after two vessels were unable to find somewhere to dock.

There had been tentative reported plans for cruise ships to be housed in the Wirral, just outside Edinburgh and in London, but the proposals were all rebuffed. Sky News reported that two ships have been returned to their prior owners after their acquisition by the government.

Ports rebuff UK plan to house asylum seekers on cruise ships

Government reportedly hands back two vessels to prior owners after ports in the Wirral, London and Scotland deny permission to dock

www.theguardian.com

They also planned to charter more of the Bibby barges (Progress and Renaissance), but when Stockholm turned out to be initially unusable due to the faulty fire alarm system and legionella in the water supply that contract was also varied.

An Irish University considered it for use as student accommodation. It seems it was perfectly suitable for those uses...

The fact that it wasn't, in fact, used for student accommodation puts that statement somewhat in doubt.

 

[BrianW]

Note, however, this wasn't the original plan. Under the original plan there would have been cruise ships moored in several ports, but the Government failed to negotiate the berth space before acquiring the ships:

Ports rebuff UK plan to house asylum seekers on cruise ships

Government reportedly hands back two vessels to prior owners after ports in the Wirral, London and Scotland deny permission to dock

www.theguardian.com

They also planned to charter more of the Bibby barges (Progress and Renaissance), but when Stockholm turned out to be initially unusable due to the faulty fire alarm system and legionella in the water supply that contract was also varied.

The fact that it wasn't, in fact, used for student accommodation puts that statement somewhat in doubt.

When the current Prime Minister and his 'advisors' cam up with the slogan 'Stop the Boats', was it not considered that some radical left-wing leaning commies might however wrongly confuse ships, barges and boats? Stop the Barges has a certain ring about it, and Stop the Ferries might come in handy when increased Border controls are introduced at Dover this autumn. Stop the Votes?

 

[Enthusiast]

Note, however, this wasn't the original plan. Under the original plan there would have been cruise ships moored in several ports,...

But there wasn't.

They also planned to charter more of the Bibby barges ...

But they didn't.

Both reinforce my point that there is a world of difference between what so-called "hardliners" say will happen and what actually does. But even ignoring that, there is nothing "hard line" about planning to house asylum seekers on something like the Bibby Stockholm. Unless, that is, you believe they should be entitled to either hotel accommodation or perhaps their own premises, having left their tarpaulins behind in Calais.

The fact that it wasn't, in fact, used for student accommodation puts that statement somewhat in doubt.

The veracity of the statement is not in doubt at all:

‘Floating’ accommodation for students being explored in Galway

Two ‘high end’ barges available if mooring location and permission can be secured

www.irishtimes.com

The plan fell through because planning permission could not be secured.

 

[The Ham]

The first three are to do with asylum, not migration. I would suggest they are necessary to deter people who are in no danger but simply don't like it where they are. The last is necessary because unprecedented numbers of people (compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s) are seeking to settle here and, strange as it may seem, the UK simply does not have the resources to accommodate them. So some form of rationing is necessary - which doesn't seem to be working.

However it's you talk to anyone who's trying to get citizenship, they will tell you just how expensive it is, there's also tales (online, so I'm not entirely sure of the validity of them) of tourist visas from non western countries costing $350 with no certainty of getting a visa.

And to add to that, I'm even sure how housing asylum seekers in ships is even supposed to be 'hardline'? The reason that's being done is that we have, by historical standards, an extraordinarily high number of asylum seekers waiting to be processed. And, whatever criticisms you might make of waiting times or why there are so many, the fact is that they have to be housed somewhere - and this is at a time when there is vastly insufficient accommodation in the UK even for people who already legally live here, If it's possible, by using boats, to quickly provide additional accommodation so that fewer asylum seekers are occupying hotels or other places that are actually needed by other people, that would seem to make pragmatic sense. Nothing to do with being 'hardline' or anything. (Although I realise there are questions about the cost etc.)

Perhaps that has something to do with the government letting the backlog build up in the first place?

In other news, Natalie Elphicke has just crossed the floor. Perhaps better discussed on the Labour thread.

It would, almost certainly, be cheaper overall to simply process applications faster - no need to find housing for ever-increasing numbers of people and those whose applications are successful can be economically active, those who are denied status can be deported.

Indeed, I don't know the numbers of cases a person can do, but let's say that's 50 a year, ever at £200/week/person for 6 months those 50 people would cost £260,000. I don't know the rates of pay, however even if they were on £100,000 a year and they only dealt with 50 over two years and reduced their average wait time by 6 months it's still going to be cheaper to deal with applications than house people.

 

[najaB]

Both reinforce my point that there is a world of difference between what so-called "hardliners" say will happen and what actually does.

To me, it speaks more to their incompetence than anything else.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However it's you talk to anyone who's trying to get citizenship, they will tell you just how expensive it is, there's also tales (online, so I'm not entirely sure of the validity of them) of tourist visas from non western countries costing $350 with no certainty of getting a visa.

Yes, most visas are very expensive. Arguably too expensive - the Government does seem to some extent to be using visa applicants as cash cows.

Someone coming as a tourist would apply for a standard visitor visa, which costs £115. The only reason I can see someone paying £350 is if they've chosen to use a private commercial visa specialist company or similar to make their application and the £350 includes the fee for that service.

Of course there's no certainty of getting any visa - because there's always the possibility of there being something wrong with the application or the person doesn't actually meet the requirements for the visa, or of there being some reason why we don't want to admit that person (such as they are a known criminal or terrorist sympathiser or they have a history of fraudulent visa applications). You could criticise the Government that there's no refund or right of appeal if a visitor's visa is refused - which seems wrong to me, but that's been the case since at least the days of the Brown Labour Government.

I'm not sure how this relates to the Tories supposedly being hardline, other than that as I've noted, visa fees are pretty expensive. I think the visa fees are unfair, but it's unlikely that has any significant impact on how many people apply for and get visas. If you really want to move to the UK you'll probably find the money to cover whatever it costs.

 

[renegademaster]

The Germans were housing immigrants on the Bibby Stockholm in the 90s, the Dutch in the 00s. We're clearly just catching up to the rest of Europe how we deal with asylum seekers.

People seem to have the impression Bibby Stockholm is a prison, but they are free to come and go and even have a shuttle bus set up for them. Allegedly dingy but so would have been the hotels

It would, almost certainly, be cheaper overall to simply process applications faster - no need to find housing for ever-increasing numbers of people and those whose applications are successful can be economically active, those who are denied status can be deported.

Easy to say but no home office ever has had to processes as many people before. I imagine like doing the DBS of someone who lived abroad a big part of the slowness is waiting for foreign sources of information to come back, not something that can be solved to chucking people at it

 

[YorkRailFan]

NEW: Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi has announced that he will be stepping down at the next general election

The former Chancellor is the 64th Tory MP that will stand down this year

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1788457729071198320?t=8n8R12tsovyoFw1VMBtbLw&s=19

Another high profile Tory MP standing down at the next General Election.

 

[Enthusiast]

Of course there's no guarantee of getting any visa - because there's always the possibility of there being something wrong with the application, or of there being some reason why we don't want to admit that person (such as they are a known criminal or terrorist sympathiser or something). You could criticise the Government that there's no refund or right of appeal if a visitor's visa is refused, but that's been the case since at least the days of the Brown Labour Government.

Which is little or no different to any visa I've had to apply for. If it isn't granted you forfeit the fee and, though I've never had one refused, I've not noticed any appeals process being available in the event of a refusal.

 

[najaB]

Easy to say but no home office ever has had to processes as many people before.

More asylum claims were made in 2002 (84,132) than in 2022 (81,130).

 

[BrianW]

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1788457729071198320?t=8n8R12tsovyoFw1VMBtbLw&s=19

Another high profile Tory MP standing down at the next General Election.

I think he can afford to leave the sinking ship, as can many leaving 'the house' at this time; unlike the homeless and pennyless he and his party have created.

 

[SteveP29]

The first three are to do with asylum, not migration. I would suggest they are necessary to deter people who are in no danger but simply don't like it where they are. The last is necessary because unprecedented numbers of people (compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s) are seeking to settle here and, strange as it may seem, the UK simply does not have the resources to accommodate them. So some form of rationing is necessary - which doesn't seem to be working.

Oh, so you CAN make the distinction between migrants, asylum seekers and refugees then?
Perhaps you should educate and inform the majority of those who advocate zero immigration

 

[Enthusiast]

Oh, so you CAN make the distinction between migrants, asylum seekers and refugees then?

Was there any suggestion that I could not. Or is your emphasis meant for "you" and not "can"?

Perhaps you should educate and inform the majority of those who advocate zero immigration

I'm not in the education business. But that aside, some people may not welcome such education. They may view all people who come to this country as "immigrants" and may prefer it if none of them were to arrive here. That's their privilege

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Perhaps you should educate and inform the majority of those who advocate zero immigration

Since pretty much no senior figures or MPs in the Tory party have advocated zero immigration, and I've not seen anyone on this forum advocating that either, that looks to me like a strawman argument in the context of this Tory party thread: Making up something extreme that that you can imply your opponents say, but which they actually don't say.

Even Reform don't advocate zero immigration - although they do advocate net zero immigration (restricting numbers coming in to be no greater than the numbers emigrating).

 

[DarloRich]

Back from my holiday

I told you all Houchen would win. Terrible news frankly. Just shows the power of unthinking social media and the captive nature of the local meida

Labour ran a lacklustre campaign. I simply.do not get it.

Perhaps @ainsworth74 has more local knowledge but it just seems to be focused nationally rather than on teesside and the goings on there.

But yeah: flights to faro and Alicante.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Which results in poorly paid, inadequately trained and unmotivated staff doing the job; there has been quite a turnover of staff amongst those that have been employed, so a lack of continuity. This results in errors leading to more delays, legal changes and costs; it also leads to a considerably increased risk of genuine cases being sent back to their deaths. However, it does see lots of tax-payers money going to Crapita, et al., so some will see it as job done.

So your solution is??? Keep things in the mess they are. Stopping people being processed so the taxpayers funding everything rather than letting successful applicants work and pay tax?

Your concern seems rather strange as there is such a thing as a fixed term contract.

 

[Busaholic]

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1788457729071198320?t=8n8R12tsovyoFw1VMBtbLw&s=19

Another high profile Tory MP standing down at the next General Election.

Damn! I was so looking forward to his being voted out, and seeing his reaction on the night. His hero Margaret Thatcher would have rightfully described him as 'frit.'

 

[david1212]

NEW: Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi has announced that he will be stepping down at the next general election
The former Chancellor is the 64th Tory MP that will stand down this year

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1788457729071198320?t=8n8R12tsovyoFw1VMBtbLw&s=19

Another high profile Tory MP standing down at the next General Election.

Stratford-upon-Avon historically is a very safe conservative seat for the MP and local council overall control. Last year at the council elections the Liberal Democrats gained 15 seats and overall control with 25 out of 41 seats. The conservatives lost 14 seats. The Greens gained two. There is just One Independent down from 4. Labour have zero seats. There were boundary changes and there are 5 more seats but in the big picture not significant.

The number one issue for Conservative canvassers was Nadhim Zahawi who was sacked as Tory Party chairman in January 2023 but did not stand down as MP. This followed Sir Laurie Magnus's inquiry finding there had been a "serious breach of the ministerial code" because he failed to disclose that HMRC was investigating his tax affairs.

If the Conservative candidate chosen for the General Election has a clean track record they are likely to win the seat and every single one is going to count. There is close to zero probability of a Labour win. Based on the council elections if the voters are not happy with the Conservative candidate a Liberal Democrat win is most likely followed by Green. The choices of candidate by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will be critical.

 

[Well Hall]

expected liberal democrat candidate Manuela Perteghellla