Bye bye Braverman

[Nearly Sane]

Well, it should be. But actual integrity doesn't apply here.

https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-apologises-again-as-she-admits-sending-official-govt-documents-to-her-personal-email-on-six-occasions-12734938

[Aruntraveller]

Added to that her rhetoric is really nasty, her latest gem being "stopping the invasion of the South Coast".

Call me pedantic if you like but I've not noticed marauding hordes raping and pillaging their way through Worthing town centre.

The woman is a disgrace. She is using language that is guaranteed to inflame.

[Nearly Sane]

Only fair

[Gordon]

Brilliant.

[Aruntraveller]

Pinching that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sunak seems to not have anyone who can replace Braverman as Home Secretary without it costing him politically - presumably any potential replacement would be more incompetent, would probably not be capable of taking the flak Braverman seems to be taking, and would not be perceived by voters who care about this issue to be as strongly opposed to illegal immigration as Braverman is perceived to be.   

Are the majority of the British public supporting taking tough immediate action to stop the people-smuggling route of entry into the UK? I actually have no idea but if the polls indicate yes - then as a politician who will face election, Sunak's job is to keep Braverman in place until he can find a competent replacement who is tough enough on this issue to appeal to voters.

[Nearly Sane]

Sunak seems to not have anyone who can replace Braverman as Home Secretary without it costing him politically - presumably any potential replacement would be more incompetent, would probably not be capable of taking the flak Braverman seems to be taking, and would not be perceived by voters who care about this issue to be as strongly opposed to illegal immigration as Braverman is perceived to be.   

Are the majority of the British public supporting taking tough immediate action to stop the people-smuggling route of entry into the UK? I actually have no idea but if the polls indicate yes - then as a politician who will face election, Sunak's job is to keep Braverman in place until he can find a competent replacement who is tough enough on this issue to appeal to voters.

None of which deals with the integrity issue.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

None of which deals with the integrity issue.

True.

Just being realistic - my impression is that at this point the public care more about a Home Secretary stopping illegal immigration than they do about the Home Secretary's integrity in relation to Ministerial Code for data breaches. Politically therefore it doesn't make sense for Braverman to resign if the public is not prioritising the integrity issue.

And based on past experience with Johnson, amongst others, the MPs in all parties these days seem to have a fairly high tolerance level for incompetence. I guess due to lack of choice - they can't find a competent Minister.

[Nearly Sane]

True.

Just being realistic - my impression is that at this point the public care more about a Home Secretary stopping illegal immigration than they do about the Home Secretary's integrity in relation to Ministerial Code for data breaches. Politically therefore it doesn't make sense for Braverman to resign if the public is not prioritising the integrity issue.

And based on past experience with Johnson, amongst others, the MPs in all parties these days seem to have a fairly high tolerance level for incompetence. I guess due to lack of choice - they can't find a competent Minister.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

Sure - people who are refugees are not illegal immigrants. A refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, AND is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

But people who have been brought here by people smugglers seeking economic improvement don't seem to fall into the category of refugee or asylum seeker. Apparently risk of starvation is not a valid reason to claim asylum...yet.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure - people who are refugees are not illegal immigrants. A refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, AND is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

But people who have been brought here by people smugglers seeking economic improvement don't seem to fall into the category of refugee or asylum seeker. Apparently risk of starvation is not a valid reason to claim asylum...yet.

And one cannot classify them as not being asylum seekers without going through a process. A process starved of funds by succesive govts but particularly recently leading to a huge increase in backlog of processing despite no related increase in applications. If the system is broken as Braverman says, would it not be reasonable to think that the party in govt for 12 years is the one responsible.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And one cannot classify them as not being asylum seekers without going through a process. A process starved of funds by succesive govts but particularly recently leading to a huge increase in backlog of processing despite no related increase in applications. If the system is broken as Braverman says, would it not be reasonable to think that the party in govt for 12 years is the one responsible.

Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.

Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.

We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/

The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.

Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.

In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis

Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum. 

[Udayana]

In the panic to make the Manston facility look less overcrowded they seem to have decided to move out some people and abandon them, with no money, nowhere to go and inadequate clothing in random London locations!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/02/home-office-leaves-asylum-seekers-from-manston-stranded-in-central-london

 

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.

Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.

We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/

The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.

Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.

In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis

Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum.

I think it's a stretch to blame anyone other than the Tories, with maybe the Lib Dems at a stretch for where we are now. They have been in power for 12 years. In addition the rise in the backlog is concentrated in the last 4 years. That other countries who process many times the amount of asylum seekers that we do do not have perfect sysyems does not mean that they don't do it better. And for the Home Secretary who has multiple security breaches, put in place by a PM who talked about integrity in his opening specch in a purely hypocritical manber; to talk about a broken system as if the Tories have nothing to do without it, is  demonstration of vacuous dishonesty.

[jeremyp]

Agree with you about funding. Also, successive Home Secretaries from both parties not up to the job of tackling processing refugees. It's a politically toxic situation.

Not sure anyone has the political will or capacity to improve it or implement a solution.

We are in an age of mass displacement. Yet the powerful and stable nations of the world have not figured out a humane way to handle the influx of people claiming persecution while balancing domestic concerns about security and cultural change. Instead, doors are simply closing, with asylum protections rolled back seemingly everywhere.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/japan-refugees-asylum-broken/607003/

The option to open up safe channels to seek asylum would still have a cap on the number of asylum seekers a country will accept. Once that cap is reached, people will go to the people smugglers to get them into a country in other ways, using small boats etc.

Amnesty International estimates that, between 2007-2013, before the Syria refugee crisis, the EU spent almost €2bn on fences, surveillance systems and patrols on land or at sea.

In theory, refugees – who have the right to cross borders in search of asylum under international law – should be exempt from these controls. But in reality, the EU has tried to prevent asylum seekers from reaching its territory wherever possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis

Similar stories in countries all over the world that refugees go to seeking asylum.

The fundamental problem is that governments like immigration. It's more people to pay taxes and work and contribute to the economy.

Not only that, a lot of them are absolutely desperate. If somebody's life back in their own country was so bad that they will risk crossing the English Channel in a dinghy with 40 other people, there's very little we can do to make the UK an unattractive destination.

So governments don't want to employ the extreme measures that will stop people from coming in because they would have to be very extreme - more extreme than shipping a handful of immigrants to Rwanda - and they don't really want to stop immigration, anyway.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think it's a stretch to blame anyone other than the Tories, with maybe the Lib Dems at a stretch for where we are now. They have been in power for 12 years. In addition the rise in the backlog is concentrated in the last 4 years. That other countries who process many times the amount of asylum seekers that we do do not have perfect sysyems does not mean that they don't do it better. And for the Home Secretary who has multiple security breaches, put in place by a PM who talked about integrity in his opening specch in a purely hypocritical manber; to talk about a broken system as if the Tories have nothing to do without it, is  demonstration of vacuous dishonesty.

I would blame whoever was in charge on the basis the buck stops with them. But don't think any of the other parties would have done any better faced with Brexit and Covid and the increasing numbers crossing the Channel. This BBC article covers a lot of the reasons for the backlog https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63477371

The issue about clunky systems and stressed staff seems to be an issue in various government systems. I have noticed that HMRC service levels have become a complete joke since Covid and it was pretty slow-going before Covid. Just the simple task of registering a change of legal entity for VAT takes months before the documents emailed to HMRC are even uploaded onto the system in order to be assigned to someone to process. There is no one to complain to, no one to speed the process up even when it's an urgent case because of a pending sale of a property that needs to be done as a transfer of a going concern. 

Underfunding seems to be a recurring theme for every department, but I'm not convinced that throwing money at a problem always solves the problem. The problem at HMRC seems to be there are very few individuals who know what they are doing - they just don't seem to possess the intelligence to problem-solve so it's not a lack of training issue, more a lack of ability issue. If you phone HMRC 3 different times you will get 3 different answers as it's pot- luck as to whether you will get a member of staff who knows the legislation or how to apply it. They have been given the training but the seem unable to retain the information in their heads. After a while staff sign off sick with stress, which then puts a burden on the rest of the team.

Maybe the Home Office are having the same issue as HMRC with the staff who deal with the asylum system. Given we keep seeing Ministers who seem to lack competence, including Truss while in the top job, hardly surprising I suppose. But I'm not convinced that a Labour government will be brimming with competent individuals who can improve the competency of staff in the civil service.

I also don't think asylum claimants who throw away their papers / passports before they get to the UK helps with the backlog as it becomes a long-winded process to see if they are entitled to stay if it is difficult to verify if they are who they say they are. I personally have spoken to Sri Lankan asylum seekers who said they threw away their papers before landing at Heathrow and gave a false name and some concocted story of persecution - they then had all kinds of complications once they were granted asylum in trying to pass the Money Laundering checks to open a Ltd company to run a business etc. They claimed they and many like them were advised to throw away their ID papers to have a better chance of getting permission to stay in the UK.

I also know Sri Lankans who had their case heard, were denied the right to stay and their solicitor would change the story and basis of their appeal, which meant they could stay for a few more months waiting for their case to be heard. Most of these people seem quite industrious and kept themselves busy working for cash payments.

[Nearly Sane]

In reply to Gabriella:

None of the above covers that the govt have been using tge ibcreased backlog as an indication of increased numbers not their functional failure, i.e. lying.

 As to whether other parties might have done better, who knows but that's irrelevant to the position you suggested that that govts other than the Tories were also to be blame for where we are in 2022. Add in the inflamnatory rhetoric, tge breaking of the law as regards the conditions in Manston, and the vacuous costly posturing about Zimbabwe, and you have an inept incompetent law breaking lying govt 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The fundamental problem is that governments like immigration. It's more people to pay taxes and work and contribute to the economy.

Not only that, a lot of them are absolutely desperate. If somebody's life back in their own country was so bad that they will risk crossing the English Channel in a dinghy with 40 other people, there's very little we can do to make the UK an unattractive destination.

So governments don't want to employ the extreme measures that will stop people from coming in because they would have to be very extreme - more extreme than shipping a handful of immigrants to Rwanda - and they don't really want to stop immigration, anyway.

I would agree that things are extremely desperate in their own country. But not sure their circumstances once they leave their country and get to France warrant travelling in an overcrowded dinghy across the English Channel. It's only a very small percentage of asylum seekers who make that journey so it may well be a case of the Darwin awards - there are a small minority of incredibly stupid people in the world who make very stupid decisions on behalf of themselves and their children.

There are quite a few Sri Lankan Tamils who claimed asylum in France - none of them spoke a word of French but they picked it up, did their best to ignore the racism and are now well-established. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In reply to Gabriella:

None of the above covers that the govt have been using tge ibcreased backlog as an indication of increased numbers not their functional failure, i.e. lying.

I thought Braverman said the asylum system is broken - was that not an admission of failures in the Home Office? The numbers crossing the Channel have increased as well. But yes, no doubt there was lying and no full disclosure going on as well. Given the history of lying in politics, I suspect not many people take what they hear from politicians at face value.   

As to whether other parties might have done better, who knows but that's irrelevant to the position you suggested that that govts other than the Tories were also to be blame for where we are in 2022. Add in the inflamnatory rhetoric, tge breaking of the law as regards the conditions in Manston, and the vacuous costly posturing about Zimbabwe, and you have an inept incompetent law breaking lying govt

I was referring to all the criticisms of the asylum system under Labour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2807893.stm - some quotes below from this article:

But by April 2001, Mr Straw felt able to declare that he felt the UK was "getting on top of the problem".

He said then that the backlog of cases waiting to be handled had fallen dramatically - but a few months later David Blunkett, having taken over at the home office, had to admit that the number of asylum seekers waiting for decisions had been hugely underestimated.

Throughout Labour's period in office, meanwhile, the press has been snapping at the government's heels over asylum, while a stream of court judgements have gone against first Jack Straw and then David Blunkett.

At times the debate has gone right to the heart of British life, with talk of "Britishness" tests and concern over the rise of far-right groups fuelled by anger over asylum.

Mr Blunkett, like Jack Straw before him, has been criticised for many of the measures introduced - and also for his language: talk of asylum seekers' children "swamping" schools caused a big political row.

In September last year, for instance, Mr Blunkett admitted that the government's manifesto commitment to remove 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year was "massively over-ambitious".

[jeremyp]

I would agree that things are extremely desperate in their own country. But not sure their circumstances once they leave their country and get to France warrant travelling in an overcrowded dinghy across the English Channel.

That isn't the point. The fact that they are prepared to do it shows that these people have amazing determination and whatever barriers we try to put in their way are likely to be inadequate.

[/quote]

[Nearly Sane]

I thought Braverman said the asylum system is broken - was that not an admission of failures in the Home Office? ...

That you are phrasing it as the 'Home Office' is highlighting the attempt to try and have this seen as a Civil Service failure, not a government one. There is an approach  in this Tory govt, and indeed in Holyrood under the SNP, to try to keep the govt being seen as an opposition. It echoes the Narxisy phrase 'permanent revolution' and there's always been a bit of it about but it's now rampant. It's partly the readon for Tory Party changing leader as frequently as they have been doing.


As to Labour, the very fact that you are mentioning Blunkett and Straw underlines how long ago you are talking about. The Tories have been in govt for 12 years. The current state of the govt on immigration is their problem.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That isn't the point. The fact that they are prepared to do it shows that these people have amazing determination and whatever barriers we try to put in their way are likely to be inadequate.

True - there is no evidence that there are measures that the UK can put in place that deter this. Australia's navy turned boats around in the ocean, but the boats asylum seekers were travelling on were much bigger than the dinghies so easier to spot and stop.

Australia faced domestic and international condemnation and soaring costs by their off-shore processing of asylum seekers. Israel had a secretive 'voluntary departure' Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers, which was abandoned as it didn't work. The asylum seekers were not allowed to settle in Rwanda so they just joined the migrant route to Europe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-61882542

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That you are phrasing it as the 'Home Office' is highlighting the attempt to try and have this seen as a Civil Service failure, not a government one.

I think it is a government failure - we were talking about the Home Secretary, who is the head of the Home Office, so is responsible for failures in the Home Office. The Govt's policies on asylum and immigration have been incompetent. The Govt incompetence would have been amplified by the performance of people working in the Civil Service.  The Civil Service are known for having a much better work-life balance than the private sector, reflected by the difference in pay. This may mean that more skilled people go into the private sector in order to get the higher salaries on offer.  This may have an impact on the effectiveness of the civil service. I really started to notice when dealing repeatedly with HMRC recently that it is like operating in a developing country - things don't work or get done. They seem to be operating at a snail's pace.

There is an approach  in this Tory govt, and indeed in Holyrood under the SNP, to try to keep the govt being seen as an opposition. It echoes the Narxisy phrase 'permanent revolution' and there's always been a bit of it about but it's now rampant. It's partly the readon for Tory Party changing leader as frequently as they have been doing.

I didn't understand this - please explain again. Why does the govt being seen as an opposition help the govt?

As to Labour, the very fact that you are mentioning Blunkett and Straw underlines how long ago you are talking about. The Tories have been in govt for 12 years. The current state of the govt on immigration is their problem.

Yes I agree the current state is the Tory govt's problem. I just don't have much faith in a different govt alleviating the problem.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes I agree the current state is the Tory govt's problem. I just don't have much faith in a different govt alleviating the problem.

And therein lies the success of the Conservatives. Convince people that politicians are all the same and there is much less impetus to vote for change.

It's nonsense of course. But very successful nonsense.

[Nearly Sane]

...
I didn't understand this - please explain again. Why does the govt being seen as an opposition help the govt?

.....

It's because they avoid accountability. Language is important - so Braverman, and indeed Patel 2 years ago, refer to immigration being broken. They don't say 'We broke it'. Similarly Sunak talks about the need to fix the economy, ignoring that he was Chancellor, and that it's been a Tory Govt for 12 years. That's also why the point about portratubg it as the Civil Service is important. When Amber Rudd was being challenged about the 'hostile environment', she went on about Home Office culture, deliberately ignoring the roke of Theresa May as Home Secretary.