Politics are moderating in the U.K.

The South East of England is very overcrowded. In fact England has a much greater population density than other UK country. Now Scotland has lots of room as does Wales ( outside the biggest cities) Eire and Northern Ireland probably have more room. So can anyone tell me the breakdown of figures of numbers of Asylum Seekers for different parts of UK?

My daughter has been to Albania for a holiday. Don’t ask me why but my sister and her family flew all the way from the Far East to Albania for their holiday too.

Albania is a very safe country. Any Albanians who come over to the UK are economic migrants not refugees.

If the government allows the Albanians to stay, then they are being unfair to another group of people who try to enter this country legally.

a) People from Hong Kong. A family of 4 from Hong Kong has to pay £11k just to access NHS. On top of that, they have to pay for their visas which run into a few thousands pounds

b)The foreign spouse of a British citizen. The British spouse has to earn £18.5 pa, if earning less, has to have a bank balance of £65k before their foreign spouse is allowed to enter this country. The foreign spouse too has to pay to access NHS. May have to attend English classes.

A growing number of the Ukrainian refugees in the UK are becoming homeless.

The Home Office is responsible for allocation of refugees and asylum seekers Anniel Some people seeking asylum are moved to Scotland , Wales and NI as part of the UK Government’s dispersal policy within the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Fact: if you think the government tardy in the processing of asylum applications then be willing to pay more tax. It’s work extra to budget for running the UK.
And that’s not the Tories fault!

ExperiencedNotOld

Fact: if you think the government tardy in the processing of asylum applications then be willing to pay more tax. It’s work extra to budget for running the UK.
And that’s not the Tories fault!

then whose fault is it?

The increased number of economic migrants. Round we go again.

“Refugees aren't the reason you can’t get a Hospital/Drs appointment

Refugees aren't the reason you could not eat this week

Refugees aren't the reason the country has food banks & high energy prices

Refugees aren't the reason you can’t buy or rent a home”

Dan White

If the government had an efficient method of processing, which allowed asylum seekers to work whilst their application was processed, so solving the hospitality employment problem, several other problems would be solved as well. Genuine asylum seekers would be paying tax and contributing, they could be charged a reasonable amount for accommodation, so reducing costs and adding tothe UK economy. More money could then be spent on processing and perhaps fast tracking unaccompanied children and Albanians. This would mean the economic migrants could be returned to their own country asap, which would effectively make people trafficking from those countries uneconomic and it would stop. The present system just enables the gang masters to send young people on boats, and have them accommodated in known places, until such time as they are required for work. It is in effect encouraging the boat system. The government must know this, but having a group of people you can attribute blame to is just so convenient isn't it?

ExperiencedNotOld

Fact: if you think the government tardy in the processing of asylum applications then be willing to pay more tax. It’s work extra to budget for running the UK.
And that’s not the Tories fault!

Taxation doesn't fund spending, ENO.

Shortage of staff and failure to recruit more are political choices, not a shortage of money.

The political choice by the Tory party NOT to have a centre at the Channel crossing has ensured thousands Unnecessarily travelling in plastic boats to seek asylum. This would cut the backlog at a stroke.

Blaming the asylum seekers is playing into the Tory agenda of the culture wars that they are intending to pursue leading up to the election. They have nothing else - no policies or past record.

But but but ... some people keep bleating on about the cost of housing asylum seekers. Where does that money come from? Surely taxation spent on preventing huge backlogs of people waiting the outcome of asylum applications would be money well spent.

Aveline

The increased number of economic migrants. Round we go again.

So identify the "economic migrants" quickly and send them back home! It's not rocket science.

Incidentally, I'd like to see some verified facts about the increasing number of "economic migrants".

I'd like to see the economic migrants rounded up, processed and sent home too. What did they actually expect?

Aveline

I'd like to see the economic migrants rounded up, processed and sent home too. What did they actually expect?

I'm sure they will be once the Home Office gets round to processing asylum applications.

In the meantime, the government thinks that demonising asylum seekers and keeping them in hotels for months, if not years on end, so that all sorts of rumours and conflicts and hatreds can be well embedded in people's consciousnesses will be a winning strategy to get them votes in the next General Election.

After all, it worked for the Brexit vote, didn't it?

Aveline

I'd like to see the economic migrants rounded up, processed and sent home too. What did they actually expect?

How do you expect anybody to identify the "economic migrants" until the asylum applications have been processed?

Interesting blog that picks up, I think, the theme of this thread

Despite what you may have heard, the British public are increasingly liberal and left-wing

Britain’s electorate today is more liberal on cultural issues and more left on economic issues than it was when we last went to the polls in December 2019.

Using data from the British Election Study (BES) (thanks to the analysis of Paula Surridge in The British General Election of 2019), it is possible to measure where voters sit on a left-right scale of economic values using a series of survey items asked regularly since 1992. This includes four of the five items from the original Heath et al. (1994) scale to enable comparisons over time.

willjennings.substack.com/p/despite-what-you-may-have-heard-the

I so hope that it is true, but even if we are more moderate and want to vote LibDem, the FPTP electoral system always works against us.

MaizieD

ExperiencedNotOld

Fact: if you think the government tardy in the processing of asylum applications then be willing to pay more tax. It’s work extra to budget for running the UK.
And that’s not the Tories fault!

Taxation doesn't fund spending, ENO.

Shortage of staff and failure to recruit more are political choices, not a shortage of money.

Taxation most certainly funds the civil service. To work, they spend public monies - and where does that come from? I am a civil servant and am very aware of the need for value when spending money collected from the public purse.

Let's put it another way. The government doesn't have to tax before it can spend. The Bank of England is by law (1866 Exchequer & Audits Act) required to pay any monies authorised by Parliament. This is not in any way dependent on revenue from taxation or any other source (taxation not being the only source of state revenue)
This means that the state is free to spend whatever it needs on whatever it wants to do.

I'll post a link to my source in my next post. It's in Section 3 of the paper.

ExperiencedNotOld

MaizieD

ExperiencedNotOld

Fact: if you think the government tardy in the processing of asylum applications then be willing to pay more tax. It’s work extra to budget for running the UK.
And that’s not the Tories fault!

Taxation doesn't fund spending, ENO.

Shortage of staff and failure to recruit more are political choices, not a shortage of money.

Taxation most certainly funds the civil service. To work, they spend public monies - and where does that come from? I am a civil servant and am very aware of the need for value when spending money collected from the public purse.

Good luck with that view, ExperiencedNotOld.

The analysis is based on an extensive review of current and historical primary legislation, official publications from public authorities including HM Treasury, the Debt Management Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the Bank of England (BoE) and other relevant institutions, additional pertinent literature describing the historical evolution of the system, and requests made to the above-mentioned departments under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 (Berkeley et al. 2021)

In contrast to previous accounts of the UK state expenditure process (Hills and Fellowes 1932; Ryan-Collins et al. 2012; Pantelopoulos and Watts 2021), we pay particular attention to the role of the Consolidated Fund (CF) as the core legal and accounting construction from which all expenditure and revenue activity is ultimately initiated. The CF, we find, provides a line of sovereign credit-money to the state itself, backed by the state’s power to raise future tax revenues. Government ‘spending’ should then be understood as a form of money creation. This contrasts with the commonly understood idea that government spending is financed through taxation or borrowing from the private sector or via central bank-initiated money creation. Furthermore, we show that it is the UK Parliament rather than the central bank or ministry of finance that governs the CF and thus authorises spending, with the BoE automatically crediting government accounts when spending takes place.

/www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

I suggest that you take it up with the people who have done the research and published the paper. not me DaisyAnne

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

The working link

MaizieD

Let's put it another way. The government doesn't have to tax before it can spend. The Bank of England is by law (1866 Exchequer & Audits Act) required to pay any monies authorised by Parliament. This is not in any way dependent on revenue from taxation or any other source (taxation not being the only source of state revenue)
This means that the state is free to spend whatever it needs on whatever it wants to do.

I'll post a link to my source in my next post. It's in Section 3 of the paper.

So, is what you are saying that the collection of taxation, though used to pay for services, does not have to be collected before we pay for them as the Government can borrow against their arrival?