Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

It seems that Boris is not waiting to leave politics in order to cash in.

Boris Johnson criticised for making millions while rarely appearing in Commons
New figures show ex-PM's outside pay this year accounts for about 85% of that for all MPs

Boris Johnson has been urged to stick to his job as an MP and save the speeches he charges private companies millions of pounds to hear for the House of Commons.

Having already made more than £3.7m in 2023, the former prime minister has faced criticism for the limited time he has spent making contributions in parliament.

New figures released by the "Westminster accounts" investigation, led by Sky News, show Johnson's outside pay this year accounts for about 85% of that for all MPs.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing and Johnson is said to have ensured all his extra pay has been declared in line with the rules.

Johnson has spoken in the Commons 16 times across 10 days since leaving Downing Street last September, received free accommodation worth tens of thousands of pounds and racked up millions for speeches and an advance on his memoirs.

All that is on top of his £84,000 salary as an MP and the six-figure annual allowance available to all former prime ministers.

Charging more than £1m for a speech was not "the best value for money, but people will make their choices about what they want to pay to hear", said Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary.

She told Sky News: "He's an elected MP and perhaps he should be making those speeches in the House of Commons chamber. Boris Johnson just does what he wants. He always does what he wants. I think popping back up every so often just reminds us of exactly how debased the Conservative party has become."

The former Tory cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell said Johnson should ask himself: "Is he still in politics, or is he in show business?"

"If he wants to be taken seriously as a contributor to the political debate, the place where political debate should take place is the House of Commons," said Dorrell.

Now a Liberal Democrat, Dorrell suggested Johnson could not decide whether he wanted to be a "private figure earning good money because he has high profile" or to remain a public figure.

At the height of the scandal over the Tory MP Owen Paterson being censured for paid lobbying, Johnson threw his support behind a plan to impose a "reasonable limit" on MPs' outside earnings.

He said in a letter to the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, that an MP's primary role should be to "serve their constituents and to represent their interests in parliament".

[The Larch]

Btw, was anything posted about the newly announced inmigration policy? Apparently Matteo Salvini has praised it, so it can't bode well...

[Tamas]

Btw, was anything posted about the newly announced inmigration policy? Apparently Matteo Salvini has praised it, so it can't bode well...

I don't know the details but I think the gist of it is that the UK would in intents and purposes abandon international standards on handing refugees, and in effect handle asylum seekers as criminals until proven innocent.

[The Larch]

Btw, was anything posted about the newly announced inmigration policy? Apparently Matteo Salvini has praised it, so it can't bode well...

I don't know the details but I think the gist of it is that the UK would in intents and purposes abandon international standards on handing refugees, and in effect handle asylum seekers as criminals until proven innocent.

Well, apparently in the law's very preamble of the bill it says that it's probably not compatible with international human rights conventions, so...

Sunak should also check how some things are worded in their official communications...



"The UK's modern slavery system" maybe doesn't come across as he thinks it does. 

[Josquius]

How refreshingly honest of the tories. Doing themselves a bit of a disservice even. Things are awful but not quite slavery

This whole thing is really weird. With the big announcements, slogans and banners it looks like theyre trying to launch an election campaign off the back of this stuff.

Which given polling consistently shows immigration as the only area people rate the tories. Even if they're obviously failing. Has a bit of sense. Painful nonetheless.

[Tamas]

Speaking of elections, budget will be announced on the 15th. What are the odds of some meaningful spending on saving the housing market?

[Jacob]

So what I'm hearing is that it's going to be okay to enslave illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

[The Larch]

So what I'm hearing is that it's going to be okay to enslave illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

It certainly doesn't help those in such situations to come out and denounce them, given that they might be thrown out of the country for it.

[Sheilbh]

Btw, was anything posted about the newly announced inmigration policy? Apparently Matteo Salvini has praised it, so it can't bode well...

I think someone online did the work of counting how many new policies had been announced to deal with the small boats/illegal immigration under this government and we're well into double figures. As with almost all of those other policies I'd be astonished if it survives the House of Lords without very significant amendments and then legal challenges. My instinct is it will be very heavily amended and litigated. I could be wrong but I suspect it'll go the way of the 50 times the Navy has been called in (it hasn't).

In a way I think that's part of the problem - there's very tough rhetoric but very ineffective policies (to the extent they're able to actually implement anything) which means the issue doesn't really go away.

Having said that the small boats have gone from not a real issue to quite a significant number of people/crossings now which is not good. I think the bigger broader issue is that there are basically three routes for "regular" arrivals who are, in effect, seeking asylum: the Afghan scheme (which doesn't function), the Ukraine scheme (which is functioning) and the Hong Kong scheme (slightly narrower than Ukraine, but broadening and functioning).

If you are not from Afghanistan, Hong Kong or Ukraine and - for whatever reason - want to claim asylum in the UK it is more or less impossible. The only options are the irregular routes of which the small boats are now about 50% and growing. Related to that is that the asylum system itself has more or less collapsed (it's not fully clear why - and it's quite difficult to work out). So claims are taking far too long to get an initial decision, although about 75% of initial decisions are positive and it's about 90% after appeals.

People who don't have an initial decision are housed by the state and, due to lack of capacity, often now housed in hotels (which, needless to say, is far costlier than actually processing their case). There are huge safeguarding risks around this including stories of people (including children) being trafficked from the state. Also since New Labour banned asylum seekers from working they are supported on benefits. Obviously the state also wants to keep costs down so instead of people being able to live in areas of their choice - normally where there is a diaspora community - they are dispersed by the state to the poorest and most deprived areas of the country. Scotland is an extreme example - there are about 5,000 asylum seekers with awaiting a decision: over 4,900 are housed in Glasgow and 7 are housed in Edinburgh. This means that there are far fewer asylum seekers in London - which is arguably culturally and economically better placed to take them - than, say, Middlesbrough. There is growing evidence this whole issue actually reduces integration of the 90% who are ultimately granted asylum.

Ultimately I do not think you can try to close the irregular routes if there are no legal routes available - and that's the way to fix the small boats problem is have a functioning asylum system where people can make applications from third countries as part of resettlement programs.

And obviously it is inhumane in itself for people to be waiting that long. I'd also add that every time I wrote "the state" in that last paragraph what I really mean is outsourced companies. It's not the state in that sense, it's G4S, Serco etc.

Having said all that I saw a Guardian political journalist say that the government aren't shouting about this bit but apparently have recognised the problem in the lack of legal routes for most of the world (when Tim Loughton is appearing pro-refugee, you have an issue) and in the processing time for applications. They are, according to the journalist, going to want to fix those issues quietly, while they shout about the other stuff. It reminds me of Tony Blair's trick when he was reading a speech on immigration that he'd look down at his notes during the positive stuff so it wouldn't be used on the evening news and direct to camera on the "tough" stuff.

So what I'm hearing is that it's going to be okay to enslave illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

It's the most inept piece of political copy I've ever seen - but I read it differently. That Britain has a modern slavery system which asylum seekers aren't able to benefit from:


And even on this they've already started backtracking with Braverman saying of course "genuinely trafficked" women would be covered by modern slavery legislation and able to claim asylum (which is a significant proportion). How she squares that with the law she's proposing or what she's understanding by the "fraudulently trafficked" women seems unclear to me. Maybe I'm just very dim but surely you're trafficked or you're not?

Which given polling consistently shows immigration as the only area people rate the tories. Even if they're obviously failing. Has a bit of sense. Painful nonetheless.

They've been behind Labour on immigration for ages now. The only areas they poll ahead of Labour on are defence and Ukraine (narrowly).

More generally since Brexit the country's gone from 80% having a negative view of immigration to 60% having a positive view - and that change is exactly the same for asylum seekers too. But among the voters Tories need to win the small boats are a top three issue. So it's less that they're tring to appeal to people in general, but basically their core constituency.

[Zanza]

I have a great policy proposal: Just let them go with P&O Ferries for free and you will probably reduce the number of small boats by 99%.

[Josquius]

The most sensible proposal is to open a centre in France, or better but less politically palettable, several in various other places (that would be a sane Rwanda policy) to apply for asylum in the UK.
Make it so crossing illegally isn't the only way and you clearly sort out 99% of the fakers from the refugees.

[Sheilbh]

The most sensible proposal is to open a centre in France, or better but less politically palettable, several in various other places (that would be a sane Rwanda policy) to apply for asylum in the UK.
Make it so crossing illegally isn't the only way and you clearly sort out 99% of the fakers from the refugees.

I think Ukraine shows how it can be done with visas and processing in third countries.

But I think there's an issue of basically saying if you can physically get to France or the UK you can apply. Not least because less than 1% of people registered with the UN as refugees are ever resettled anywhere rather than living in camps either as internally displaced people or in immediately neighbouring countries. I think we should generally be trying to support the UN system and working through it rather than, in effect, prioritising those physically (and financially) able to get to France/the UK. That goes both in helping fund it but also in making it possible and easier for people to apply for asylum and be resettled here.

[Josquius]

The most sensible proposal is to open a centre in France, or better but less politically palettable, several in various other places (that would be a sane Rwanda policy) to apply for asylum in the UK.
Make it so crossing illegally isn't the only way and you clearly sort out 99% of the fakers from the refugees.

I think Ukraine shows how it can be done with visas and processing in third countries.

But I think there's an issue of basically saying if you can physically get to France or the UK you can apply. Not least because less than 1% of people registered with the UN as refugees are ever resettled anywhere rather than living in camps either as internally displaced people or in immediately neighbouring countries. I think we should generally be trying to support the UN system and working through it rather than, in effect, prioritising those physically (and financially) able to get to France/the UK. That goes both in helping fund it but also in making it possible and easier for people to apply for asylum and be resettled here.

Sure. That's where I'd be keen on putting the option to do this in stable friendly countries elsewhere.
As said it'd be by far the best use of Rwanda than shipping people there.

Fundmanetally international law is what it is and you have the right to apply anywhere - the issue being we don't allow them to do this without physically been here.

[Admiral Yi]

Asylum laws are wonderful in theory, but too easily game-able.  I don't know of an easy fix.

[The Larch]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day
Presenter will stop appearing on the football show until agreement is reached on his social media use

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his use of social media.

The government had put the BBC under pressure after Lineker posted a series of tweets criticising Rishi Sunak's asylum policy and likened the language used by ministers to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

A BBC spokesperson said: "The BBC has been in extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days. We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines.

"The BBC has decided that he will step back from presenting Match of the Day until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media.