Total immigration in 2025 with visas (mostly for study or work) was 809,000. Detected arrivals via illegal/irregular routes (small boats and others) was 46,000, 60% were from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and Iran, exactly the places you would expect and 95% of those arriving on small boats claimed asylum on arrival.
These “illegals”, as the extreme right puts it, comprise 5% of the total. Supporting those claiming asylum and in the system costs about £3bn per annum of which £6m per day, or £2bn per annum goes on hotels, ie straight back to British businesses!
@Vase the issue for me is not so much Streeting being Labour right or whatever, because that's not a new issue wrt Labour leadership. The issue is Streeting's own personal bigotries which he has made into policy, and that he's an odious [word I cannot say on The Ship]. I wouldn't feel the same way about, say, Lisa Nandy - not that I would like her, but I don't think she would put me personally at risk.
What seems to attract little comment is the contempt displayed towards the people living in the Makerfield constituency. The man who took the seat in 2024, and the Labour Party who support his action in resigning his seat, are behaving as if the constituency is a modern version of a Rotten Borough for them to use as a tool for use in their internal succession drama. Frankly, it makes one wish that the good people of Makerfield emulate the voters of Leyton in 1965 when an attempt to find a safe seat for a former cabinet minister backfired spectacularly.
What seems to attract little comment is the contempt displayed towards the people living in the Makerfield constituency. The man who took the seat in 2024, and the Labour Party who support his action in resigning his seat, are behaving as if the constituency is a modern version of a Rotten Borough for them to use as a tool for use in their internal succession drama. Frankly, it makes one wish that the good people of Makerfield emulate the voters of Leyton in 1965 when an attempt to find a safe seat for a former cabinet minister backfired spectacularly.
I can see it that way, but I can also see that people might decide they'd prefer Burnham to Starmer (or Streeting) as PM and not look the offered gift horse in the mouth. I think it also matters that Gordon Walker was another constituency's reject.
What seems to attract little comment is the contempt displayed towards the people living in the Makerfield constituency. The man who took the seat in 2024, and the Labour Party who support his action in resigning his seat, are behaving as if the constituency is a modern version of a Rotten Borough for them to use as a tool for use in their internal succession drama. Frankly, it makes one wish that the good people of Makerfield emulate the voters of Leyton in 1965 when an attempt to find a safe seat for a former cabinet minister backfired spectacularly.
I can see it that way, but I can also see that people might decide they'd prefer Burnham to Starmer (or Streeting) as PM and not look the offered gift horse in the mouth. I think it also matters that Gordon Walker was another constituency's reject.
They might. Or some of them might. Given that 30% were already voting Reform in 2024 this might be seen by others as a superb chance to stick the knife into Labour again and maximise the chances of a Farage premiership ASAP.
What seems to attract little comment is the contempt displayed towards the people living in the Makerfield constituency. The man who took the seat in 2024, and the Labour Party who support his action in resigning his seat, are behaving as if the constituency is a modern version of a Rotten Borough for them to use as a tool for use in their internal succession drama. Frankly, it makes one wish that the good people of Makerfield emulate the voters of Leyton in 1965 when an attempt to find a safe seat for a former cabinet minister backfired spectacularly.
I can see it that way, but I can also see that people might decide they'd prefer Burnham to Starmer (or Streeting) as PM and not look the offered gift horse in the mouth. I think it also matters that Gordon Walker was another constituency's reject.
They might. Or some of them might. Given that 30% were already voting Reform in 2024 this might be seen by others as a superb chance to stick the knife into Labour again and maximise the chances of a Farage premiership ASAP.
I think if Burnham is not elected then we are going to have an interesting/annoying situation where labour leadership has little credibility or support; if Streeting stands, I highly doubt the unions would support him. Starmer looks too wounded to continue.
I wonder if there's a dark horse candidate waiting to put their name forward.
I think Angela Raynor will run if Burnham doesn’t.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
I think Angela Raynor will run if Burnham doesn’t.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
Angela Rayner only entered parliament in 2015, so she couldn’t vote for (or against) the Iraq War. As for Burnham he was a mere PPS in 2003.
I think Angela Raynor will run if Burnham doesn’t.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
Angela Rayner only entered parliament in 2015, so she couldn’t vote for (or against) the Iraq War. As for Burnham he was a mere PPS in 2003.
Yeah, but plenty of other Labour MPs in parliament at that time voted against it. We can't know what Rayner might have done, but we know what Burnham did.
I think Angela Raynor will run if Burnham doesn’t.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
Angela Rayner only entered parliament in 2015, so she couldn’t vote for (or against) the Iraq War. As for Burnham he was a mere PPS in 2003.
Yeah, but plenty of other Labour MPs in parliament at that time voted against it. We can't know what Rayner might have done, but we know what Burnham did.
We have to ask if any of those who voted against the war are still in parliament. Many have died, or retired but I wonder how many have been purged and relegated to the backbenchers, and could make a plausible challenge now?
I think Angela Raynor will run if Burnham doesn’t.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
Angela Rayner only entered parliament in 2015, so she couldn’t vote for (or against) the Iraq War. As for Burnham he was a mere PPS in 2003.
Yeah, but plenty of other Labour MPs in parliament at that time voted against it. We can't know what Rayner might have done, but we know what Burnham did.
We have to ask if any of those who voted against the war are still in parliament. Many have died, or retired but I wonder how many have been purged and relegated to the backbenchers, and could make a plausible challenge now?
The PLP is packed with the same sort of spads, spivs and obedient morally vacuous lobby fodder as in 2003, but a few of the principled old guard remain. Of course one of the first actions of Starmer's mob was to make it harder for them to get nominated for the leadership. John McDonnell would be an excellent choice (would that he'd got enough nominations in 2007; history might have been very different).
Why did you vote Lib Dem ? What was the attraction ?
I'd say:
* Consistently pro-European, only party to convincingly embrace Remain in 2016
* Best on immigration, less inclined than others to beat the anti-migrant drum
* Generally favour market economy but open to state ameliorations (that's a plus for me)
* Good on freedom of individual conscience
* Consistently in favour of proportional representation
* My constituency is a Conservative-Lib Dem contest (but I would probably have voted LibDem this time even had that not been the case)
Yeah, but plenty of other Labour MPs in parliament at that time voted against it. We can't know what Rayner might have done, but we know what Burnham did.
Exactly, I am more in sympathy with her politics but also it would also be useful to have leader who is not open to the exact same attack lines as the current one.
People in Labour are angry with Keir because he tacked right, therefore also not delivering on the promises that got him the leadership. Burnham and Raynor are further left. The public are angry about the Mandelson appointment - so Streeting is a poor choice, and I am absolutely sure that the press will dig up Burnham praising Mandelson because they were in government at the same time. Some sectors of the public are angry about insufficient condemnation and of the actions of the Israeli government, I think Angela Raynor has been somewhat more vocal about that than Streeting - though Burnham has also. The public as a whole really don’t want to be pulled into a Middle Eastern war, which is a weak point for Burnham. Of course the biggest obstacle for him, is for him to actually be in parliament.
Wes Streeting is a Tory Wet who somehow finds himself in the Labour party. I'd love there to be a Tory party in which he could find a home, because that would make UK politics very much healthier.
Angela Rayner has a lot of merits, and certainly has the appearance of being honest rather than being a spin merchant.
You guys just don’t get it. Step outside the SoF bubble for a minute.
A soft left Labour party would seriously annoy most voters over ‘stop the boats’, keep an unsustainable welfare bill and crash the economy. These are what the voters care about, rightly or wrongly, and if they’re not given enough of what they want, they’ll go to Reform.
Who will do immigration, welfare reform and everything else in a nasty, nasty way.
Streeting gets it.
Er no. I certainly am not in a bubble. I would think neither are others here. I follow political.
Firstly as mentioned polls point to the cost of living as the main problem. Immigration is further down on the list.
Secondly people say they voted for change and they don’t see they got it. Streeting is seen as more of the same. He also suffers from his friendship with a certain ex US Ambassador.
You appear to be the one in the bubble.
I think far too much is made of the "friendship" between Mandelson and Streeting. To be blunt, they are two generations apart - Streeting was still a schoolboy during the so-called glory days of Mandelson. Looking at Mandelson's behaviour over the years, I suspect he saw Streeting as a prospect to watch and tried to keep in with him, rather than anything else.
There do have to be limits to the guilt by association tendency.
I think far too much is made of the "friendship" between Mandelson and Streeting. To be blunt, they are two generations apart - Streeting was still a schoolboy during the so-called glory days of Mandelson. Looking at Mandelson's behaviour over the years, I suspect he saw Streeting as a prospect to watch and tried to keep in with him, rather than anything else.
There do have to be limits to the guilt by association tendency.
I think it is more of an unfortunate choice of acquaintance than anything else but as said it will figure.
Streeting has now said he sees the UK being back in the EU eventually, and believes we need closer ties. That may lose him some cred I certain circles
The people obsessed with those pretend "issues" are not "most voters" and they're already voting tory or Reform anyway. Step out of your right wing bubble and you'll realise that most people give a shit about others and recognise Farage for the nasty little toad he is.
Don't underestimate the willingness of the people to vote "nasty toad". The US voted for Trump twice, despite the fact that his campaign was basically characterized by "I'm a hateful asshole. Join my team and we can mock the losers together." Farage is copying his gameplan - tell the people that they are being defrauded by immigrants and wasteful spending on minorities, and then have them not look to closely at where all the money actually goes.
The people obsessed with those pretend "issues" are not "most voters" and they're already voting tory or Reform anyway. Step out of your right wing bubble and you'll realise that most people give a shit about others and recognise Farage for the nasty little toad he is.
Don't underestimate the willingness of the people to vote "nasty toad". The US voted for Trump twice, despite the fact that his campaign was basically characterized by "I'm a hateful asshole. Join my team and we can mock the losers together." Farage is copying his gameplan - tell the people that they are being defrauded by immigrants and wasteful spending on minorities, and then have them not look to closely at where all the money actually goes.
I think if Farage had succeeded in taking over the Conservative Party that would have happened. Trump was successfully able to co-opt one party in a two party system and marry its loyalists to his own personal vote. Farage, whatever other successes he's had, hasn't managed to do that. If there is a tory-Reform alliance all bets are off.
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
Also it's a great distraction from all the other things that need fixing: housing, cost of living, the NHS...
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
One of the many ways in which this is an almost entirely manufactured crisis.
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't. Next Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the then Home Secretary, John Reid, describing the Immigration Service as not fit for purpose, and the only change has been that it has got worse. As and until there is root-and-branch reform at all levels there will continue to be chaos. The "average voter" realises that, and is going to allow his (correct) evaluation to guide her/his views, and perhaps vote accordingly.
Also it's a great distraction from all the other things that need fixing: housing, cost of living, the NHS...
Of course it is. But you miss the biggest problem which directly affects all others - a fundamental failure to get to grips with the way that governments handle money, from the insanely complex tax regime to the belief that businesses can be used as a milch cow without consequences. And you can add to that snail-like processes of basic administration across the board, particularly in procurement, but also in seemingly endless public enquiries and commissions. No better example could be had in the latter regard than the announcement that it is "hoped" that charges will be brought before the tenth anniversary of the Grenfell fire.
I should think both Polly Toynbee and Nigel Farage would assent to the statement that the immigration system is not fit for purpose. Until you specify what the purpose is and what needs to be done.saying it's not fit for purpose doesn't tell you much.
The rest of your post doesn't tell me much either. Is the tax system complicated for the sake of it or because life is complicated and the tax system is trying to be fair in reflecting that? If you don't get down to specifics, you run the risk of a DOGE-like farce, where great time and effort is spent cutting stuff that turns out to be important and saves hardly any money in the end. Do public enquiries take too long because they're underfunded, because there's something in the culture that makes them take too long (if so what?), or because considering lots of evidence takes a long time? And does the Treasury really regard businesses as milch cows? How much of the government's tax revenue should be raised from businesses?
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't. Next Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the then Home Secretary, John Reid, describing the Immigration Service as not fit for purpose, and the only change has been that it has got worse. As and until there is root-and-branch reform at all levels there will continue to be chaos.
These sort of soundbites are all very well, but identify neither a problem nor a solution. What does "robust" mean in this context? What would it look like after "root and branch reform"? Solomon couldn't accurately divine who is at risk of persecution among asylum applicants. The Home Office process is often grotesque and Kafkaesque (demanding people "prove" that they're gay or insisting that they can't be at risk of persecution if they can stay in the closet, for example) but that's a different issue from how people get to the point of being able to apply, which *is* easily solved. It's call a ferry ticket.
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't.
In addition to the other criticisms, there is plenty of evidence that the Conservative governments deliberately ran down the asylum system in order to produce a 'deterrence effect', and also allowed costs to balloon for ideological reasons (a comittment to privatisation of provision):
Meh. @Arethosemyfeet, I don't disagree with you but FWIW, even the ferry ticket isn't necessary. The French asked for years for British officials to be sent over to process applications on our side of the Channel. It would have kept a lot of people out of danger in small boats and saved us a lot of trouble and money fishing people out of the sea. It was never done, and the reasons are entirely political.
(I haven't heard anything about this lately so I'm guessing we've decided it's a waste of time and energy to keep on asking.)
And also - it's not illegal to cross the channel in a boat. It doesn't give anyone any kind of illegal label, because that's only a status someone holds after officially being given instructions to leave the country. Undocumented people who are outside of the system are legally not the same as someone who has had an asylum claim refused, for eg.
And also - it's not illegal to cross the channel in a boat. It doesn't give anyone any kind of illegal label, because that's only a status someone holds after officially being given instructions to leave the country. Undocumented people who are outside of the system are legally not the same as someone who has had an asylum claim refused, for eg.
All the fuss about the 40,000 who arrive on small boats and claim asylum deflects from the more serious problem of overstaying visas. The Home Office stopped measuring this in 2020 but Migration Watch reckons the total resident irregular migrants at between 700,000 and 1,200,000. There are also about 120,000 in the asylum and refugee “queue”, waiting for decisions.
It’s pretty clear to me that overstaying visas is a far more serious problem: the people overstaying can’t get benefits, access the health services, get a legitimate job or a bank account. The only jobs they can get are in the grey, even black economy and that could make them a victim of modern slavery.
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't. Next Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the then Home Secretary, John Reid, describing the Immigration Service as not fit for purpose, and the only change has been that it has got worse. As and until there is root-and-branch reform at all levels there will continue to be chaos.
.
These sort of soundbites are all very well, but identify neither a problem nor a solution. What does "robust" mean in this context? What would it look like after "root and branch reform"? Solomon couldn't accurately divine who is at risk of persecution among asylum applicants. The Home Office process is often grotesque and Kafkaesque (demanding people "prove" that they're gay or insisting that they can't be at risk of persecution if they can stay in the closet, for example) but that's a different issue from how people get to the point of being able to apply, which *is* easily solved. It's call a ferry ticket.
What do I mean by "robust"? A system that sees everyone who arrives as a person deserving of having their claim/ application dealt with in a timely manner, and while that process is going on houses them in decent accommodation - that is particularly important for those with young children - and that gives everyone access to medical facilities. Further, there should be access to education, particularly to ensure that those who cannot speak English are given a basic crash-course in the language, and some sort of induction course about British society, law, etc. We need a proper system something like this:
As for the process of "proving" the grounds that people claim under, other countries seem able to do it - the UK needs to swallow pride and learn from others.
They could 'stop the boats' quite easily by reopening legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK. According to free market theory this would remove the market for smuggling genuine refugees, allowing the police to concentrate on stopping criminals from entering the country illegally. Of course they're not going to do that because the Daily Mail would never stand for it.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't. Next Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the then Home Secretary, John Reid, describing the Immigration Service as not fit for purpose, and the only change has been that it has got worse. As and until there is root-and-branch reform at all levels there will continue to be chaos.
.
These sort of soundbites are all very well, but identify neither a problem nor a solution. What does "robust" mean in this context? What would it look like after "root and branch reform"? Solomon couldn't accurately divine who is at risk of persecution among asylum applicants. The Home Office process is often grotesque and Kafkaesque (demanding people "prove" that they're gay or insisting that they can't be at risk of persecution if they can stay in the closet, for example) but that's a different issue from how people get to the point of being able to apply, which *is* easily solved. It's call a ferry ticket.
What do I mean by "robust"? A system that sees everyone who arrives as a person deserving of having their claim/ application dealt with in a timely manner, and while that process is going on houses them in decent accommodation
Then as the previous article shows you can put most of the blame on deliberate underfunding of the parts of the Home Office dealing with asylum, the Courts, and then dragged out asylum claims for years (typically the majority of cases that ended up court ended in successful claims), and placed asylum seekers in substandard (private) accommodation at huge cost to the state - all for ideological purposes.
Comments
Bemoaning dishonesty and beating the anti-semitism drum in the same breath takes some serious chutzpah.
These “illegals”, as the extreme right puts it, comprise 5% of the total. Supporting those claiming asylum and in the system costs about £3bn per annum of which £6m per day, or £2bn per annum goes on hotels, ie straight back to British businesses!
People have already started to fisk his statement, and given Streeting, it's not that difficult to do:
https://bsky.app/profile/implausibleblog.bsky.social/post/3mlyemodghk2a
I can see it that way, but I can also see that people might decide they'd prefer Burnham to Starmer (or Streeting) as PM and not look the offered gift horse in the mouth. I think it also matters that Gordon Walker was another constituency's reject.
They might. Or some of them might. Given that 30% were already voting Reform in 2024 this might be seen by others as a superb chance to stick the knife into Labour again and maximise the chances of a Farage premiership ASAP.
I think if Burnham is not elected then we are going to have an interesting/annoying situation where labour leadership has little credibility or support; if Streeting stands, I highly doubt the unions would support him. Starmer looks too wounded to continue.
I wonder if there's a dark horse candidate waiting to put their name forward.
Streeting is quite closely associated with Mandelson, and Burnham was in Blair’s cabinet and voted for the Iraq war - for which reason I think she would be a better choice than either of them.
Angela Rayner only entered parliament in 2015, so she couldn’t vote for (or against) the Iraq War. As for Burnham he was a mere PPS in 2003.
Yeah, but plenty of other Labour MPs in parliament at that time voted against it. We can't know what Rayner might have done, but we know what Burnham did.
We have to ask if any of those who voted against the war are still in parliament. Many have died, or retired but I wonder how many have been purged and relegated to the backbenchers, and could make a plausible challenge now?
The PLP is packed with the same sort of spads, spivs and obedient morally vacuous lobby fodder as in 2003, but a few of the principled old guard remain. Of course one of the first actions of Starmer's mob was to make it harder for them to get nominated for the leadership. John McDonnell would be an excellent choice (would that he'd got enough nominations in 2007; history might have been very different).
I'd say:
* Consistently pro-European, only party to convincingly embrace Remain in 2016
* Best on immigration, less inclined than others to beat the anti-migrant drum
* Generally favour market economy but open to state ameliorations (that's a plus for me)
* Good on freedom of individual conscience
* Consistently in favour of proportional representation
* My constituency is a Conservative-Lib Dem contest (but I would probably have voted LibDem this time even had that not been the case)
Exactly, I am more in sympathy with her politics but also it would also be useful to have leader who is not open to the exact same attack lines as the current one.
People in Labour are angry with Keir because he tacked right, therefore also not delivering on the promises that got him the leadership. Burnham and Raynor are further left. The public are angry about the Mandelson appointment - so Streeting is a poor choice, and I am absolutely sure that the press will dig up Burnham praising Mandelson because they were in government at the same time. Some sectors of the public are angry about insufficient condemnation and of the actions of the Israeli government, I think Angela Raynor has been somewhat more vocal about that than Streeting - though Burnham has also. The public as a whole really don’t want to be pulled into a Middle Eastern war, which is a weak point for Burnham. Of course the biggest obstacle for him, is for him to actually be in parliament.
Er no. I certainly am not in a bubble. I would think neither are others here. I follow political.
Firstly as mentioned polls point to the cost of living as the main problem. Immigration is further down on the list.
Secondly people say they voted for change and they don’t see they got it. Streeting is seen as more of the same. He also suffers from his friendship with a certain ex US Ambassador.
You appear to be the one in the bubble.
There do have to be limits to the guilt by association tendency.
I think it is more of an unfortunate choice of acquaintance than anything else but as said it will figure.
Streeting has now said he sees the UK being back in the EU eventually, and believes we need closer ties. That may lose him some cred I certain circles
Don't underestimate the willingness of the people to vote "nasty toad". The US voted for Trump twice, despite the fact that his campaign was basically characterized by "I'm a hateful asshole. Join my team and we can mock the losers together." Farage is copying his gameplan - tell the people that they are being defrauded by immigrants and wasteful spending on minorities, and then have them not look to closely at where all the money actually goes.
I think if Farage had succeeded in taking over the Conservative Party that would have happened. Trump was successfully able to co-opt one party in a two party system and marry its loyalists to his own personal vote. Farage, whatever other successes he's had, hasn't managed to do that. If there is a tory-Reform alliance all bets are off.
Also it's a great distraction from all the other things that need fixing: housing, cost of living, the NHS...
One of the many ways in which this is an almost entirely manufactured crisis.
But that assumes that the system for processing claims for asylum, and ordinary applications to enter, is robust - it isn't. Next Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the then Home Secretary, John Reid, describing the Immigration Service as not fit for purpose, and the only change has been that it has got worse. As and until there is root-and-branch reform at all levels there will continue to be chaos. The "average voter" realises that, and is going to allow his (correct) evaluation to guide her/his views, and perhaps vote accordingly.
Of course it is. But you miss the biggest problem which directly affects all others - a fundamental failure to get to grips with the way that governments handle money, from the insanely complex tax regime to the belief that businesses can be used as a milch cow without consequences. And you can add to that snail-like processes of basic administration across the board, particularly in procurement, but also in seemingly endless public enquiries and commissions. No better example could be had in the latter regard than the announcement that it is "hoped" that charges will be brought before the tenth anniversary of the Grenfell fire.
The rest of your post doesn't tell me much either. Is the tax system complicated for the sake of it or because life is complicated and the tax system is trying to be fair in reflecting that? If you don't get down to specifics, you run the risk of a DOGE-like farce, where great time and effort is spent cutting stuff that turns out to be important and saves hardly any money in the end. Do public enquiries take too long because they're underfunded, because there's something in the culture that makes them take too long (if so what?), or because considering lots of evidence takes a long time? And does the Treasury really regard businesses as milch cows? How much of the government's tax revenue should be raised from businesses?
These sort of soundbites are all very well, but identify neither a problem nor a solution. What does "robust" mean in this context? What would it look like after "root and branch reform"? Solomon couldn't accurately divine who is at risk of persecution among asylum applicants. The Home Office process is often grotesque and Kafkaesque (demanding people "prove" that they're gay or insisting that they can't be at risk of persecution if they can stay in the closet, for example) but that's a different issue from how people get to the point of being able to apply, which *is* easily solved. It's call a ferry ticket.
In addition to the other criticisms, there is plenty of evidence that the Conservative governments deliberately ran down the asylum system in order to produce a 'deterrence effect', and also allowed costs to balloon for ideological reasons (a comittment to privatisation of provision):
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/10/27/the-sheer-scale-of-conservative-mismanagement-of-the-asylum-system-revealed/
(I haven't heard anything about this lately so I'm guessing we've decided it's a waste of time and energy to keep on asking.)
All the fuss about the 40,000 who arrive on small boats and claim asylum deflects from the more serious problem of overstaying visas. The Home Office stopped measuring this in 2020 but Migration Watch reckons the total resident irregular migrants at between 700,000 and 1,200,000. There are also about 120,000 in the asylum and refugee “queue”, waiting for decisions.
It’s pretty clear to me that overstaying visas is a far more serious problem: the people overstaying can’t get benefits, access the health services, get a legitimate job or a bank account. The only jobs they can get are in the grey, even black economy and that could make them a victim of modern slavery.
What do I mean by "robust"? A system that sees everyone who arrives as a person deserving of having their claim/ application dealt with in a timely manner, and while that process is going on houses them in decent accommodation - that is particularly important for those with young children - and that gives everyone access to medical facilities. Further, there should be access to education, particularly to ensure that those who cannot speak English are given a basic crash-course in the language, and some sort of induction course about British society, law, etc. We need a proper system something like this:
:www.refugeehelp.nl/en/asylum-seeker/article/100474-these-are-the-different-types-of-reception-locations-if-you-apply-for-asylum-in-the-netherlands
As for the process of "proving" the grounds that people claim under, other countries seem able to do it - the UK needs to swallow pride and learn from others.
Then as the previous article shows you can put most of the blame on deliberate underfunding of the parts of the Home Office dealing with asylum, the Courts, and then dragged out asylum claims for years (typically the majority of cases that ended up court ended in successful claims), and placed asylum seekers in substandard (private) accommodation at huge cost to the state - all for ideological purposes.