Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Jebus_lives]

She also said this in the same interview. I don’t think I can actually post my opinion on her as the swear filter would 100% get me a ban

It's not even remotely true. The data tells you that. UC tops up incomes of those in work and pays for benefits for disabled and unable to work.

UC allows you to reduce the debate from distinction of types of benefit claimant into one indistinct group. So "cutting disabled benefits" becomes "cutting benefits for work shy".

You wouldn't accept one, but people will the other, because everyone knows or hears angry stories about that one arsehole who cheats the system or the channel 5 clickbait about "40 kids and on benefits" - so that becomes the narrative in people's minds.

 

[ChesterBlue]

She’s a [Poor language removed] or a [Poor language removed]?

There’s nowhere near enough swearwords in there lol

 

[Marius57]

I've only ever seen the phrase "illegal immigrant" used in relation to those crossing the channel in boats, when my understanding is that all of those people are claiming asylum. In most countries, by far the biggest element of "illegal immigration" is people overstaying their visa. Do we really think it's "those" people that the politicians are talking about?

I worked in a refugee service as part of my social work degree. No such thing as an "illegal immigrant". Its a right wing media term.

We have asylum seekers and refugees. If their asylum claim is refused, they still aren't illegal. As most of the time there is appeals in place and when all options are exhausted, they will be deported back to their countries either voluntarily for forcibly. However, even at this point, they are still registered and often have years to wait until this happens due to bureaucracy and have no recourse to public funds, end up being destitute and have to regularly make their way to "sign in".

Asylum seekers get put in awful housing and get about £40 a week to live on for food, clothing etc which gets put on a card that can't be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes etc.

Our asylum system costs about £1.5b a year. Which is tiny when you think that Kamikwase just tanked the economy by 65b.

Oh and something like 75% or so of the asylum claims made in this country are granted (or given some form of protection.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Mmm. It’s an interesting one, as you’re basically advocating an open door policy, presumably post some sort of security checking / registration process. I think you’re right, it would be more cost effective for sure (think the system cost is more like £2b these days).

I’m thinking more about the practical and ethical difficulty dealing with those who’ve been through the existing process, rather than essentially scrapping the process itself.

Definitely more cost effective, likely political kryptonite though.

Oh it's definitely that because blaming "the other" is a default position for politicians, and to be honest is probably basic in-group/out-group psychology. Those same biases underpin a lot of the prejudices we see in society though and so we rightly say they're not right and work against them. This is not really any different except it's an acceptable form of bias.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I worked in a refugee service as part of my social work degree. No such thing as an "illegal immigrant". Its a right wing media term.

We have asylum seekers and refugees. If their asylum claim is refused, they still aren't illegal. As most of the time there is appeals in place and when all options are exhausted, they will be deported back to their countries. However, even at this point, they are still registered and often have years to wait until this happens and have no recourse to public funds, end up being destitute and have to regularly make their way to "sign in".

Asylum seekers get put in awful housing and get about £40 a week to live on for food, clothing etc which gets put on a card that can't be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes etc.

Our asylum system costs about £1.5b a year. Which is tiny when you think that Kamikwase just tanked the economy by 65b.

If you are put in contingency accomodation, you get £8.24 a week.

That has to cover everything you need aside from what the hotel supplies you with.

 

[Jebus_lives]

@Bruce Wayne note the inclusion of Rachel Reeves.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's not even remotely true. The data tells you that. UC tops up incomes of those in work and pays for benefits for disabled and unable to work.

UC allows you to reduce the debate from distinction of types of benefit claimant into one indistinct group. So "cutting disabled benefits" becomes "cutting benefits for work shy".

You wouldn't accept one, but people will the other, because everyone knows or hears angry stories about that one arsehole who cheats the system or the channel 5 clickbait about "40 kids and on benefits" - so that becomes the narrative in people's minds.

It's perhaps also worth noting this study from the University of Chicago. Long story short, poorer folk spend a much greater proportion of their income than wealthier folk. Poorer folk are also at much higher risk of losing their jobs during a recession. When that happens, it makes recessions much worse precisely because poorer folk spend more of their income so the economy loses that when they lose their income. In other words, if we want this current recession to be better, we need to focus less on the rich and more on the poor.

Loading…

www.christinahydepatterson.com

 

[Marius57]

If you are put in contingency accomodation, you get £8.24 a week.

That has to cover everything you need aside from what the hotel supplies you with.

Yeah, I think it varies from where you are and whats available. I'm in the north East (where a large proportion of asylum seekers are dispersed to from the south east/London where they aren't allowed to be placed), and its usually housing they get given rather than hotels here.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I worked in a refugee service as part of my social work degree. No such thing as an "illegal immigrant". Its a right wing media term.

We have asylum seekers and refugees. If their asylum claim is refused, they still aren't illegal. As most of the time there is appeals in place and when all options are exhausted, they will be deported back to their countries either voluntarily for forcibly. However, even at this point, they are still registered and often have years to wait until this happens due to bureaucracy and have no recourse to public funds, end up being destitute and have to regularly make their way to "sign in".

Asylum seekers get put in awful housing and get about £40 a week to live on for food, clothing etc which gets put on a card that can't be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes etc.

Our asylum system costs about £1.5b a year. Which is tiny when you think that Kamikwase just tanked the economy by 65b.

Oh and something like 75% or so of the asylum claims made in this country are granted (or given some form of protection.

The mad thing to me is that that £1.5bn a year is spent processing people to see if their circumstances are sufficiently shitty to warrant us letting them into the country, when I know all of the studies I've read on this topic says that nearly all refugees just want to get on and have a normal, meaningful life again, just somewhere that is safe.

The whole system seems to setup this default narrative that people are a burden on society and we should only put up with that burden if their circumstances are sufficiently dire to warrant our charity, yet they don't really "want" charity, they just want a safe place to rebuild their lives.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's perhaps also worth noting this study from the University of Chicago. Long story short, poorer folk spend a much greater proportion of their income than wealthier folk. Poorer folk are also at much higher risk of losing their jobs during a recession. When that happens, it makes recessions much worse precisely because poorer folk spend more of their income so the economy loses that when they lose their income. In other words, if we want this current recession to be better, we need to focus less on the rich and more on the poor.

Loading…

www.christinahydepatterson.com

Reminiscent of the avocado/Netflix vs housing dichotomy.

On one hand the young, if they want to buy a house, should stop buying avocado and going to coffee shops and frittering away their income, but once local business and hospitality was struggling post Covid, the blame lay on younger people no longer supporting business and saving their income.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Yeah, I think it varies from where you are and whats available. I'm in the north East (where a large proportion of asylum seekers are dispersed to from the south east/London where they aren't allowed to be placed), and its usually housing they get given rather than hotels here.

Contingency housing is provided where suitable accomodation cant be found. It's normally short term. But from experience, not all the expected needs are met through the hotels or those tasked with care.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Reminiscent of the avocado/Netflix vs housing dichotomy.

On one hand the young, if they want to buy a house, should stop buying avocado and going to coffee shops and frittering away their income, but once local business and hospitality was struggling post Covid, the blame lay on younger people no longer supporting business and saving their income.

I thought it was particularly interesting that the study came from Chicago, which was arguably the intellectual home of trickle down economics back in the day. Maybe the Tories didn't get the memo?

But yes, you're quite right in that a lot of those local businesses are themselves highly vulnerable economically speaking, so the cycle continues.

 

[Marius57]

The mad thing to me is that that £1.5bn a year is spent processing people to see if their circumstances are sufficiently shitty to warrant us letting them into the country, when I know all of the studies I've read on this topic says that nearly all refugees just want to get on and have a normal, meaningful life again, just somewhere that is safe.

The whole system seems to setup this default narrative that people are a burden on society and we should only put up with that burden if their circumstances are sufficiently dire to warrant our charity, yet they don't really "want" charity, they just want a safe place to rebuild their lives.

Exactly. I must have seen about 12/15 asylum seekers every day to support through their processes/appeals/applications etc. And most would speak about wanting to be with family and wanting to work rather than getting any handouts.

The forms they are expected to complete are also incredibly complicated and any mistake would cause it to be sent back and delayed. And responses were sent to them in English which they often couldnt read. It was entirely set up for them to fail.

 

[Jebus_lives]

The mad thing to me is that that £1.5bn a year is spent processing people to see if their circumstances are sufficiently shitty to warrant us letting them into the country, when I know all of the studies I've read on this topic says that nearly all refugees just want to get on and have a normal, meaningful life again, just somewhere that is safe.

The whole system seems to setup this default narrative that people are a burden on society and we should only put up with that burden if their circumstances are sufficiently dire to warrant our charity, yet they don't really "want" charity, they just want a safe place to rebuild their lives.

This is well observed.

The most common complaint/struggle I found with asylum seekers was the inability to work and treatment as though they needed charity.

It can be dehumanizing. Particularly if that person is highly skilled and feels guilty that they are being provided for when they are capable of work.

 

[Abertonian]

It's perhaps also worth noting this study from the University of Chicago. Long story short, poorer folk spend a much greater proportion of their income than wealthier folk. Poorer folk are also at much higher risk of losing their jobs during a recession. When that happens, it makes recessions much worse precisely because poorer folk spend more of their income so the economy loses that when they lose their income. In other words, if we want this current recession to be better, we need to focus less on the rich and more on the poor.

Loading…

www.christinahydepatterson.com

This weeks The Rest is Politics podcast (a listener writing in I think) proposes the need for 'trickle up economics' for exactly the reasons identified in the study.