Opportunity Missed?

[Ringy Rose]

7 hours ago, Josem said:

I am open to other suggestions on why asylum seekers are fleeing France (or Belgium) on often-unseaworthy boats

1. Because the smugglers don't give them a choice.

2. Because they want to be in an English-speaking country.

It's worth pointing out that most asylum seekers in France stay there, because they speak French. And that France takes three times as many asylum seekers as the UK does.

But then you think Hiding Scott Morrison, the liar from the shire, is a success. And only the lobotomised would think that.

[Eris]

Well it's pretty clear that being isolated from the awful effects of illegal immigration is resulting in people failing to see and experience the terrible consequences of the open door policy that Blair kicked off. I'm not surprised to see negative comments about how dreadful the opinions and reporting is from "The Daily Wail" but in fact all it does is express the views of the majority of English people.  I suggest a better source is Migration Watch, an independent working group that deals with pure facts.

[Lost Login]

8 minutes ago, Eris said:

Well it's pretty clear that being isolated from the awful effects of illegal immigration is resulting in people failing to see and experience the terrible consequences of the open door policy that Blair kicked off. I'm not surprised to see negative comments about how dreadful the opinions and reporting is from "The Daily Wail" but in fact all it does is express the views of the majority of English people.  I suggest a better source is Migration Watch, an independent working group that deals with pure facts.

Migration Watch is a pressure/campaign group that wants lower immigration. It is hardly independent on the basis that that it has no skin in the game. It is also campaigning against immigration as a whole not just illegal immigration which I expect is a stance you agree with unless those immigrants are Anglo Saxon in appearance. 

Based on your posts you are not keen on facts as you seem to ignore those that don't back your opinion. "Illegal" immigration in the UK is pretty small if you mean by that asylum seekers. Prior to 2021 the UK had less than 30k a year and at most 10k of those were declined asylum. So the UK is taking in roughly 20K a year on average. As I posted previously asylum seekers comprise roughly 6% of immigrants to the UK (UK government figures). Most of immigration to the UK is totally under the control of the UK Government but that does not suit the narrative of the right wing or xenophobes like yourselves.

As for asylum seekers being "illegal" immigrants please explain how under the current UK rules most people are able to claim asylum in the UK without breaking some rule to get in. Effectively to claim asylum in the UK you have to travel direct to the UK from the country you are leaving which effectively means a direct flight or boat having obtained the appropriate visas. If you are living for fear of your life in Afghanistan because you helped the UK when they were there do you think it is possible to get a direct flight to the UK with all the relevant visa.

The UK Government basically has a catch 22 position with regard to asylum seekers where basically seeking asylum makes you ineligible for asylum. They or many of the supporters are also massively dishonest describing the Rwanda accommodation as relating to processing. That gives the impression that once you claim is processed you may be granted asylum  to the UK. That is not the case it is simply deportation to Rwanda. A country that just last year the UK criticised their human rights record and which is a country from which the UK has in recent years accepted people seeking asylum from. It is also a country where this same policy failed when Israel tried it.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is a difficult subject and matter to deal with. It is not helped by the current Government wanting to feed the prejudices of is xenophobic supporters whilst not trying to address the issue sensibly. For years the claimed that because the UK was part of the EU the UK could not control its borders when much of the immigration was not from countries where there was not free movement and the UK Government had total control of whether they came.

I doubt Johnson cares whether this policy works or actually get put in place. It is all about grabbing headlines and appealing to a segment of the UK population.

 

 

[Eris]

11 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Migration Watch is a pressure/campaign group that wants lower immigration. It is hardly independent on the basis that that it has no skin in the game. It is also campaigning against immigration as a whole not just illegal immigration which I expect is a stance you agree with unless those immigrants are Anglo Saxon in appearance. 

Based on your posts you are not keen on facts as you seem to ignore those that don't back your opinion. "Illegal" immigration in the UK is pretty small if you mean by that asylum seekers. Prior to 2021 the UK had less than 30k a year and at most 10k of those were declined asylum. So the UK is taking in roughly 20K a year on average. As I posted previously asylum seekers comprise roughly 6% of immigrants to the UK (UK government figures). Most of immigration to the UK is totally under the control of the UK Government but that does not suit the narrative of the right wing or xenophobes like yourselves.

As for asylum seekers being "illegal" immigrants please explain how under the current UK rules most people are able to claim asylum in the UK without breaking some rule to get in. Effectively to claim asylum in the UK you have to travel direct to the UK from the country you are leaving which effectively means a direct flight or boat having obtained the appropriate visas. If you are living for fear of your life in Afghanistan because you helped the UK when they were there do you think it is possible to get a direct flight to the UK with all the relevant visa.

The UK Government basically has a catch 22 position with regard to asylum seekers where basically seeking asylum makes you ineligible for asylum. They or many of the supporters are also massively dishonest describing the Rwanda accommodation as relating to processing. That gives the impression that once you claim is processed you may be granted asylum  to the UK. That is not the case it is simply deportation to Rwanda. A country that just last year the UK criticised their human rights record and which is a country from which the UK has in recent years accepted people seeking asylum from. It is also a country where this same policy failed when Israel tried it.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is a difficult subject and matter to deal with. It is not helped by the current Government wanting to feed the prejudices of is xenophobic supporters whilst not trying to address the issue sensibly. For years the claimed that because the UK was part of the EU the UK could not control its borders when much of the immigration was not from countries where there was not free movement and the UK Government had total control of whether they came.

I doubt Johnson cares whether this policy works or actually get put in place. It is all about grabbing headlines and appealing to a segment of the UK population.

 

 

The bottom line is that the UK is now grossly overpopulated quite apart from not being able to support illegal immigrants and the antics of most of them once landed.

[Lost Login]

26 minutes ago, Eris said:

The bottom line is that the UK is now grossly overpopulated quite apart from not being able to support illegal immigrants and the antics of most of them once landed.

It is purely your opinion that the UK is grossly overpopulated. That many of the lower paid industries in the UK, that relied on migrants, can not recruit employees would suggest that is not the case.

Even if it was accepted that the UK was overpopulated, I would argue the world is rather than the UK, what should the population of the UK be? It is also strange that the only solution to this appears to be reducing immigrants and "sending foreigner's back home."  I don't see many arguing for a reduction in the UK population by a calling for limits on the number of children families have etc. 

Like much racist bigotry it is merely trying to find a wrapper to conceal it rather than be honest.   

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

It is purely your opinion that the UK is grossly overpopulated. That many of the lower paid industries in the UK, that relied on migrants, can not recruit employees would suggest that is not the case.

Even if it was accepted that the UK was overpopulated, I would argue the world is rather than the UK, what should the population of the UK be? It is also strange that the only solution to this appears to be reducing immigrants and "sending foreigner's back home."  I don't see many arguing for a reduction in the UK population by a calling for limits on the number of children families have etc. 

Like much racist bigotry it is merely trying to find a wrapper to conceal it rather than be honest.   

"Antics" is also an opinion.

I asked for evidence and got none. 

Bizarre, when you think that the Brits are often referred to as a mongrel nation. 

[SleepyJoe]

15 hours ago, Josem said:

Every bank creates money, this is what banks do.

It is true that the Isle of Man Government does not own a bank, and the Isle of Man Government cannot create money directly - but given that the Isle of Man Government has significant reserves, this is not really a meaningful difference. As the pandemic has proven, the Isle of Man Government has ample ability to pump large amounts of additional money into the economy. This financial year, through deficit spending, they're putting more money into the Manx economy as well.

I don't see much reason to think that the real-world economic financial implications of the IOM Government's deficit spending are likely to be very different from the UK Government's deficit spending: higher inflation and reduced spending power of money. I don't see any reason to think that money from the BoE is meaningfully different in this respect.

The Isle of Man does not have significant reserves - they're pretty modest. Treasury does not have ample ability to pump large amounts of additional money into the economy

The NI Fund is exactly that, an active national insurance resource and not the plaything of government

[Max Power]

14 hours ago, finlo said:

Aren't these mystical "reserves" just the on paper value of the islands infrastructure ie the value of the schools hospitals and roads etc as apposed to liquid assets?

I don’t think that’s the case finlo, the reserves are cash available to spend. The infrastructure would be classed as assets. These could be sold to create reserves I guess.

[finlo]

7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I don’t think that’s the case finlo, the reserves are cash available to spend. The infrastructure would be classed as assets. These could be sold to create reserves I guess.

And as SleepyJoe pointed out the Ni fund shouldn't be classed as reserves for them to pillage at their leisure that's our pensions at risk!

[SleepyJoe]

Treasury Minister Ashford could put money into the economy by granting living pensions to the island's retirees

[Josem]

18 hours ago, finlo said:

Aren't these mystical "reserves" just the on paper value of the islands infrastructure ie the value of the schools hospitals and roads etc as apposed to liquid assets?

No, they are (substantially) liquid financial assets.

They're described in more detail on page 17, and pages 141-146 here: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

4 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:

The Isle of Man does not have significant reserves - they're pretty modest. Treasury does not have ample ability to pump large amounts of additional money into the economy

The NI Fund is exactly that, an active national insurance resource and not the plaything of government

The Isle of Man Government was described as having "high reserves" in Moody's last review of the Isle of Man Government's credit rating in October 2021, and "very strong public finances" earlier in 2021. Certainly compared to other government's, the Isle of Man's reserves are very strong (apart from various gas/oil nations like the Middle East and Norway, few other nations have any net reserves at all!)

I like your optimism that the NI Fund is "not the plaything of government", but given that the Isle of Man Government announced just eight weeks ago that they were taking £8.25 million out of the NI Fund* to cover a black hole in recurring spending, I do not think your faith in the restraint of Manx politicians is well-placed.

 

*Source: p.3 of the same link above: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

[Josem]

3 hours ago, finlo said:

And as SleepyJoe pointed out the Ni fund shouldn't be classed as reserves for them to pillage at their leisure that's our pensions at risk!

That would be good if it was the case!

I like your thinking, but the politicians are plundering it already. It would be nice if they didn't dip into the NI reserves to fund their profligacy, but our politicians already have their snouts in there with their two front trotters as well.

[SleepyJoe]

30 minutes ago, Josem said:

No, they are (substantially) liquid financial assets.

They're described in more detail on page 17, and pages 141-146 here: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

The Isle of Man Government was described as having "high reserves" in Moody's last review of the Isle of Man Government's credit rating in October 2021, and "very strong public finances" earlier in 2021. Certainly compared to other government's, the Isle of Man's reserves are very strong (apart from various gas/oil nations like the Middle East and Norway, few other nations have any net reserves at all!)

I like your optimism that the NI Fund is "not the plaything of government", but given that the Isle of Man Government announced just eight weeks ago that they were taking £8.25 million out of the NI Fund* to cover a black hole in recurring spending, I do not think your faith in the restraint of Manx politicians is well-placed.

 

*Source: p.3 of the same link above: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

I don't think many of us would endorse it but it's a grab to fund a gap - it is said - in Health & Care funding

Really Treasury Minister Ashford should have cut his cloth elsewhere - perhaps in the running costs of the gargantuan edifice that is the government establishment - but he didn't, he resorted to this as an easier option

Impression is he's next to make an attempt to further reduce the pitiful social security blanket that currently exists, perhaps to fill this health care funding gap next year

Edited April 15, 2022 by SleepyJoe

[asitis]

4 hours ago, finlo said:

And as SleepyJoe pointed out the Ni fund shouldn't be classed as reserves for them to pillage at their leisure that's our pensions at risk!

Yup the UK government misappropriated 271 billion from the NI fund and deprived millions of women of their promised dues ! Didn't we get a "free" hospital from the interest on ours ?

[SleepyJoe]

36 minutes ago, Josem said:

No, they are (substantially) liquid financial assets.

They're described in more detail on page 17, and pages 141-146 here: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

The Isle of Man Government was described as having "high reserves" in Moody's last review of the Isle of Man Government's credit rating in October 2021, and "very strong public finances" earlier in 2021. Certainly compared to other government's, the Isle of Man's reserves are very strong (apart from various gas/oil nations like the Middle East and Norway, few other nations have any net reserves at all!)

I like your optimism that the NI Fund is "not the plaything of government", but given that the Isle of Man Government announced just eight weeks ago that they were taking £8.25 million out of the NI Fund* to cover a black hole in recurring spending, I do not think your faith in the restraint of Manx politicians is well-placed.

 

*Source: p.3 of the same link above: https://www.gov.im/media/1375698/pink-book-2022.pdf

More fool Moody's