Mortgage rates / interest etc

[Jameshow]

It's been panto season since BJ became PM.

Took over from Corbyn!!!!

 

[julianf]

@julianf there are a lot of people less fortunate than the most bereft in UK society, and again we have really two classes of ‘boat people’, those who have a real claim to be refugee / asylum status and the economic migrants.

However, the larger question is why would anyone wish to place their life in mortal danger and use a small unsafe boat to try and cross the channel to gain access the the UK from a stable, democratic, none discriminatory Europe? In ever case, they will have passed through multiple European countries to arrive at the shores of France before attempting the crossing.

Now, let’s consider France, they like almost every country have laws about illegal access to the country. You either are permitted to reside, visit or have to claim asylum / refugee status or be deported. Now, it would appear that those seeking to cross the channel have not achieved the right to reside in France, or indeed any other European country they have passed through. For what ever reason, France has not deported them, and neither has any of the other European countries they have passed through. Once half way across the channel, they are no longer within the European Union and become subject to UK laws. Now, Europe is not going to allow illegal aligns back into Europe, now that we are no longer part of the EU. So, once they arrive, determining where they are actually from if they either have no papers, or have chosen to not have papers is extremely difficult, especially if your from a war torn state, or a very poor state where records can be none existent. A country is not going to take back an economic migrant unless it’s certain they are actually from the country. So a lot of time and expense is entailed in working out these basic facts, made harder by those who wish to hide their point of origin.

Being for instance gay, or to have turned away from say the Muslim faith can if a person is returned to their homeland make make them subject to persecution, a legitimate reason for a person to seek asylum. However, it’s very difficult to work out if these are genuine claims, or just claims made to gain access to the country as in reality they are economic migrants.

The fall of Iraq has in essence ‘opened the door’ enabling mass migration from Africa to Europe, totally understandable aspirations for many at the very bottom of the economic ladder, more than a few steps down from the worst economic conditions in the UK. However, what tends to be the case is that the fit, young and bright make the journey, this reduces the ability of the poor country to economically develop, this coupled with legitimate migration from these countries of the well educated, such as doctors and nurses is condemning the country to poor economic development. Like most things in life, it’s an extremely difficult problem if it were simple it would have been solved by now.

To put some numbers on it, I understand that this year alone there have been c38,000 people have cross the channel. Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc), that’s approx £1.57 billion to process just these people. That is affecting your interest rate, inflation, and the taxes that you pay

I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.

Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.

So why is this cost so high?

Is it

A) because the asylum seekers can only eat caviare, or

B) someone is royally rinsing the tax payer for money, once again


A or B?

Remember, we are playing the blame game here.

So, who's fault is it? The people with nothing or the people who are, in some way or other, actually profiting from that £4300 per month?

It does not cost £4300 a month to house and feed someone, and pay for all their paperwork etc so the rest of that money is going somewhere...

I wonder where?

Again I'd remind you that we need to blame someone, so who do we blame? The person with nothing or the person who is massively ripping off the tax payer?

 

[julianf]

Took over from Corbyn!!!!

Ahh yes, that famous PM...

 

[deema]

I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.

Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.

So why is this cost so high?

Is it

A) because the asylum seekers can only eat caviare, or

B) someone is royally rinsing the tax payer for money, once again


A or B?

Remember, we are playing the blame game here.

So, who's fault is it? The people with nothing or the people who are, in some way or other, actually profiting from that £4300 per month?

It does not cost £4300 a month to house and feed someone, and pay for all their paperwork etc so the rest of that money is going somewhere...

I wonder where?

Again I'd remind you that we need to blame someone, so who do we blame? The person with nothing or the person who is massively ripping off the tax payer?

So, apart from the normal costs of living (housing, clothing, money for living expenses) we supply medical treatment which is an expense, we provide interpreters and legal representation in order for them to be able to properly have their case for staying in the country considered properly. If they are minors, then they get schooling, a guardian, social services etc etc. Then there is the court time, judges, court clerks and everything else are all an additional costs. I.e. if they didn’t make an asylum application these costs wouldn’t be incurred. It all very rapidly adds up.

 

[John Brown]

Took over from Corbyn!!!!

Have you forgotten May and Cameron so quickly?

 

[John Brown]

I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.

Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.

So why is this cost so high?

Is it

A) because the asylum seekers can only eat caviare, or

B) someone is royally rinsing the tax payer for money, once again


A or B?

Remember, we are playing the blame game here.

So, who's fault is it? The people with nothing or the people who are, in some way or other, actually profiting from that £4300 per month?

It does not cost £4300 a month to house and feed someone, and pay for all their paperwork etc so the rest of that money is going somewhere...

I wonder where?

Again I'd remind you that we need to blame someone, so who do we blame? The person with nothing or the person who is massively ripping off the tax payer?

Roughly the same amount as it costs to incarcerate someone, but probably not as much as care for the elderly.
From which I conclude that we should put all old people in prison. Doesn't solve the asylum seeker problem, though.

 

[Jameshow]

Have you forgotten May and Cameron so quickly?

Who were they?! Don't forget IDS and the other one I cannot remember!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Just looked up the cost per prisoner - around £48k pa. Care home costs are £50k pa ++.

No doubt some variation depending on nature of the accommodation, but many costs will be similar - food, health care, building and services. "Management" may be somewhat different:

• prisons have prison officers,
• hospitals need care and medical staff,
• asylum seekers need interpreters, immigration staff, legal support, language teachers etc

I am unsurprised by the similarity of costs. The big issue is what can be done:

• the UK is perceived as an attractive place to seek asylum. The easier it is, the more people will be attracted - in spite of the risks of a channel crossing.
• governments have failed to agree a clear policy. Public views are polarised - politicians don't want to alienate some voters. Disgraceful display of non-leadership!
• we cannot rely on French help to control our borders - every boat that sets sail across the channel represents a few less problems for the French to deal with

IMHO resolution requires:

• an explicit policy to be adopted by the UK on the treatment of asylum seekers, rather than the inadequate cop out that presently exists
• all applications to be processed within (say) 3 months after which there is no further right of appeal. The current delays are completely unacceptable
• applicants arriving from mainland Europe need to justify the decision not to seek asylum there. Clear criteria needed - eg: family ties in the UK, language skills (possibly)
• if the application is unsuccessful - immediate flight back to country of origin or Rwanda (?)

There will be those who would regard this as uncompromisingly tough and likely expose applicants to serious risks on return. I would agree - but the fundamental point still holds true - make it easy to come and numbers will increase, make it fair but tough and only those with a realistic prospect of a successful application will make the journey.

 

[monster]

So does Baldkev fix his mortgage or not?!

Baldkev had a full head of hair when he started this thread!

 

[johna.clements]

• all applications to be processed within (say) 3 months after which there is no further right of appeal. The current delays are completely unacceptable

The majority of asylum seekers who appeal are successful.

The government has failed to process but a tiny fraction of the people who arrived by boat last year. More than 90% (correct me if I am incorrect) have been in the system for more than three months. Does that mean that they are automatically accepted in your scheme..

Obviously if people were getting automatic passes if the process was dragged out for more than three months the quality of the decisions would decrease. The government would have to give them the benefit of the doubt even if they wanted to make further inquiries. Or the government would reject genuine asyllm seekers, who are the majority, and then face the political embarrassment as cases are continuously pointed out.

 

[Jacob]

....the UK is perceived as an attractive place to seek asylum. ...

Not true. It's a popular self deception with the usual crowd. Basically UK is a dismal 'ole but those that choose have their reasons.
Nor is it easy to get here, quite the opposite. They deserve medals for courage and determination. They are obviously highly motivated and generally do well, given a chance.

https://www.eyes-on-europe.eu/what-...m-such-an-important-destination-for-migrants/

 

[Jameshow]

Or course it's a popular place to come come too.

Benefits.
Employment
Language
Climate
Rule of law
Lack of racism
Healthcare
Education

Etc etc.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Not true. It's a popular self deception with the usual crowd. Basically UK is a dismal 'ole but those that choose have their reasons.
Nor is it easy to get here, quite the opposite. They deserve medals for courage and determination. They are obviously highly motivated and generally do well, given a chance.

I agree with you second point - but what exactly are the reasons the apparently talented, determined, motivated, courageous decide to come to the UK if, as you say, it is such a dismal hole.

 

[Pineapple]

You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
A representative sample here:

View attachment 146075

Any chance you could Identify 1 to 9 for us, please, Jacob ?

 

[Scruples]

You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
A representative sample here:

View attachment 146075

That theory is as daft as the one you think is the cause.
We are what we are.

 

[Pineapple]

@julianf there are a lot of people less fortunate than the most bereft in UK society, and again we have really two classes of ‘boat people’, those who have a real claim to be refugee / asylum status and the economic migrants.

However, the larger question is why would anyone wish to place their life in mortal danger and use a small unsafe boat to try and cross the channel to gain access the the UK from a stable, democratic, none discriminatory Europe? In ever case, they will have passed through multiple European countries to arrive at the shores of France before attempting the crossing.

Now, let’s consider France, they like almost every country have laws about illegal access to the country. You either are permitted to reside, visit or have to claim asylum / refugee status or be deported. Now, it would appear that those seeking to cross the channel have not achieved the right to reside in France, or indeed any other European country they have passed through. For what ever reason, France has not deported them, and neither has any of the other European countries they have passed through. Once half way across the channel, they are no longer within the European Union and become subject to UK laws. Now, Europe is not going to allow illegal aligns back into Europe, now that we are no longer part of the EU. So, once they arrive, determining where they are actually from if they either have no papers, or have chosen to not have papers is extremely difficult, especially if your from a war torn state, or a very poor state where records can be none existent. A country is not going to take back an economic migrant unless it’s certain they are actually from the country. So a lot of time and expense is entailed in working out these basic facts, made harder by those who wish to hide their point of origin.

Being for instance gay, or to have turned away from say the Muslim faith can if a person is returned to their homeland make make them subject to persecution, a legitimate reason for a person to seek asylum. However, it’s very difficult to work out if these are genuine claims, or just claims made to gain access to the country as in reality they are economic migrants.

The fall of Iraq has in essence ‘opened the door’ enabling mass migration from Africa to Europe, totally understandable aspirations for many at the very bottom of the economic ladder, more than a few steps down from the worst economic conditions in the UK. However, what tends to be the case is that the fit, young and bright make the journey, this reduces the ability of the poor country to economically develop, this coupled with legitimate migration from these countries of the well educated, such as doctors and nurses is condemning the country to poor economic development. Like most things in life, it’s an extremely difficult problem if it were simple it would have been solved by now.

To put some numbers on it, I understand that Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc)Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc), that’s approx £1.57 billion to process just these people. That is affecting your interest rate, inflation, and the taxes that you pay

IF:- " Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc) "
Then why don't we save a lot of Office Time & Money by Giving each successful-channel-crossing-migrant the equivalent of HALF THAT COST; so that they can set themselves up in stable rented housing and a small business to support themselves going forward ?
By doing that we would turn them from an expensive liability into useful and lucrative Tax-Payers !
( 415 Days x £100 Per Day = £41,500. ) ...So if we gave them say, £20,000 Each to set themselves up, on a "Succeed;- or be Returned to Point of Origin Basis" we could gain £21,500 Each Immediately AND WE, AS A NATION would gain a useful Tax-Paying Citizen....Sounds like a Win - Win idea to me.
( " 38,000 migrants PER YEAR x £21,500 saved on each one = £817 Million in savings alone BEFORE they start paying Income tax & VAT...)
To my uneducated mind, it's a No Brainer !

 

[deema]

IF:- " Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc) "
Then why don't we save a lot of Office Time & Money by Giving each successful-channel-crossing-migrant the equivalent of HALF THAT COST; so that they can set themselves up in stable rented housing and a small business to support themselves going forward ?
By doing that we would turn them from an expensive liability into useful and lucrative Tax-Payers !
( 415 Days x £100 Per Day = £41,500. ) ...So if we gave them say, £20,000 Each to set themselves up, on a "Succeed;- or be Returned to Point of Origin Basis" we could gain £21,500 Each Immediately AND WE, AS A NATION would gain a useful Tax-Paying Citizen....Sounds like a Win - Win idea to me.
( " 38,000 migrants PER YEAR x £21,500 saved on each one = £817 Million in savings alone BEFORE they start paying Income tax & VAT...)
To my uneducated mind, it's a No Brainer !

Simply because the entirety of Africa a,one with everyone from every poor nation would then be living in the UK. We also wouldn’t have enough money to do it. Apart from which, would you not think that every legal citizen would see it as unfair, and that they should also get the same boost for their lives?

 

[Pineapple]

Simply because the entirety of Africa a,one with everyone from every poor nation would then be living in the UK. We also wouldn’t have enough money to do it. Apart from which, would you not think that every legal citizen would see it as unfair, and that they should also get the same boost for their lives?

I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.

 

[Jacob]

I agree with you second point - but what exactly are the reasons the apparently talented, determined, motivated, courageous decide to come to the UK if, as you say, it is such a dismal hole.

Because it's a better 'ole than the one they are in.
Many of them come from war zones of our creation. £30billion spent on bombing them and destabilising their lives. https://assets.publishing.service.g...-Cost_of_the_wars_in_Iraq_and_Afghanistan.pdf
Some reparations are called for and something a bit better than this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...chless-by-failings-at-migrants-centre-in-kenthttps://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar...of 2021, 9.2 million,first to escape the war.

 

[Jacob]

I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.

We do do that in a sense already, with foreign aid. A good investment if managed properly. Also making small reparations for colonialism and the empire.