13 ms·

The real story here is that over the last 12 years of UK government, austerity policies have cut back all public services to the point where they don't actually

The real story here is that over the last 12 years of UK government, austerity policies have cut back all public services to the point where they don't actually exist. Criminal Barristers are currently on strike because the legal aid system is so broken. Close to 10% of the entire country are currently on an NHS waiting list, with that number expected to continue to rise until atleast 2024. Meanwhile, the tax burden in the UK has reached it's highest point in 70 years - putting us in a similar position to the 1950s where the UK was paying back the debts from WW2. The Home Office has just announced that after years of failing to stop immigrants from reaching the UK by boarding small boats to cross the channel, the government has entirely abandoned its responsbility to grant asylum to asylum seekers and instead will pay millions of pounds to have Rwanda do it for us (in order to deter the immigrants that we've failed to stop crossing the channel, because we can't stop them crossing the channel). Essentially we see this story repeatedly and the underlying question is "Why has no one actually investigated what seems to be an obviously illegal enterprise" and the answer is "Because we don't employ anyone to do that anymore".

dataengineer56 4y ago
---
- basisword 4y ago
  The government’s plan has faced objections from across the political spectrum. It’s widely accepted that it’s highly immoral. The people that agree with it are by far a minority.
  - Veen 4y ago
    It's unpopular with left-leaning journalists, lawyers, and politicians. Polls are mixed about whether it's popular with the general public, but that's what elections are for.
- Jaruzel 4y ago
  > In the plans, single men who arrive illegally in boats or lorries will be sent to Rwanda Which depending on which organisation you speak to, may or may not be legal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241 Personally, I'm embarrassed at how xenophobic and closed-minded my country has become.
  - adwww 4y ago
    Also crossing the channel for the purpose of claiming asylum is not actually illegal.
- Traster 4y ago
  To claim asylum in the UK you must be physically present in the UK. Which means that functionally, there are no "proper channels" through which the vast majority of these asylum seekers could apply they have to cross the UK borders illegally first. But that wasn't the point of my comment, I was pointing out that this policy is only in place because the government has completely failed to prevent these border crossings and this policy is essentially just them giving up on trying. I would be quite surprised if the policy ever actually comes into effect given the timing of its announcement before the local elections.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I mean if the UK were to provide transportation into the UK they wouldn't arrive, as you call it, "illegaly". How do you seek asylum in the UK through proper channels, in your opinion? That said, it reminds me of the EU paying Libya and Turkey to keep migrants/asylum seekers from crossing over to Europe. I'm not convinced the migrants are being treated fairly. The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins; improve stability and economic outlook and the like. That said, another approach to reduce migration to the UK seems to be to make it less attractive.
  - jl6 4y ago
    > The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins Migrants are typically among the most motivated people in the source country. They are the ones that can get it together to organize transport, travel a great distance, maybe learn a new language… altogether a great effort. Perhaps one way to improve circumstances in the country of origin would be for those people to stay at home and put their effort into their own country. But it turns out we actually like the economic consequences of having those type of immigrants in our country. They are, by and large, hard working and skilled. And so we continue to brain-drain the countries of origin, at their expense.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- altacc 4y ago
  Without looking it up, are you aware of and can you identify the "proper channels" for claiming asylum in the UK? I ask as most people who claim asylum seekers should do so "properly & legally" are unable to describe what that process is and I find it odd that people keep referring to a process they have no idea about.
  - maxehmookau 4y ago
    TalkRadio in the UK has a lot to answer for. Self-important blowhards spouting this nonsense day in and day out but, like you say, when you probe even slightly in to the detail, there's nothing.
    - altacc 4y ago
      I used to work in an office where colleagues insisted on listening to radio phone-ins and my choice was either headphones or deep hatred & anger towards the ignorant callers. Usual choice was headphones, better for the stress levels!
- blibble 4y ago
  > This is a very bitter /r/unitedkingdom-style comment, I don't expect to see things like this on HN. most posts about the UK now on HN turn into a /r/unitedkingdom whingefest about government policy mostly unrelated to the topic can you imagine if every post about something in the US was the same? mods need to step it up
  - adwww 4y ago
    Or maybe it's just the common viewpoint among most computer-literate, non-retired Brits.
    - Veen 4y ago
      It tends to be more popular among middle class people, and much less popular among working class people who actually bear the brunt of uncontrolled immigration. It's not the middle classes who are struggling to find social housing or any housing at all.
      - klelatti 4y ago
        > uncontrolled immigration Obviously not true. Anyway blaming government failures such as social housing on immigration is a well known trick. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-crisis-in-uk-social-housing-happen https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-...
        Veen 4y ago
        If anyone who can get in a boat in France can migrate to the UK, that is, by definition, uncontrolled. What you call "a well known trick" is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable argument, whatever the Guardian wants to say about it. It is fact that we have a massive shortfall in social housing. What caused that shortfall is largely irrelevant.
        klelatti 4y ago
        There are controls on immigration therefore it is not uncontrolled. The fact that a few desperate people are prepared to risk their lives in the Channel doesn't make it uncontrolled. "Not building enough social housing is largely irrelevant to dealing with the social housing crisis." Hmmm.
Veen 4y ago
How would you suggest the UK "stops the small boats"? Any attempt to stop them by force or push them back would result in a large number of drowned migrants. The only way to stop them is to discourage them from getting in the boats in the first place. It would be nice if the French did that on their side of the channel, but they don't. The point of the Rwanda scheme is to make getting in the boat an undesirable option, because you'll just end up somewhere you don't want to be. The hope is that few people will have to be sent to Rwanda because they'll stop paying people smugglers to make the trip.
- regularfry 4y ago
  Why this false dichotomy? Either we do whatever authoritarian crap the Home Office are pushing this month or it's pushing people back into the sea and drowning them? No. What will discourage people from getting into boats is to provide safe routes in. Literally a desk in Calais where you can walk up and say "I'm going to request asylum and need a ferry ticket, have Borders Agency meet me at the other side please" would undercut the people smugglers to the extent that you wouldn't have boats any more. The French offered us almost exactly this but we turned them down.
  - matthew40 4y ago
    Then you should be happy because Rwanda will do exactly what you said the French should have done.
    - regularfry 4y ago
      Except they won't. The deportations are for asylum application in Rwanda, not to process them for onward passage back to the UK. This is trivial stuff. Besides which, costs per applicant under a "desk in Calais" scheme would cost peanuts. Remind me how much the Rwanda scheme costs, per asylum seeker?
  - Veen 4y ago
    And when an asylum claim fails, what happens to the asylum seeker? The French won't take them back, so what generally happens is that they stay in the UK regardless of whether the claim is justified. That's equivalent to having open borders, which I suspect is the underlying objective of many who strongly object to this scheme. Plus, of course, they are already in France. They could claim asylum there.
bencollier49 4y ago
Am I missing something fundamental here? What have London sweet shops got to do with UK government spending? Rents on Oxford Street, perhaps? Or is this a foreign key problem? EDIT: I think the parent poster has added a last line to clarify, or maybe I missed it to begin with. Makes sense now.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  The government needs to spend money on the judicial system, otherwise we can't prosecute criminals and society is infested with them.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  The suggestion is that they are fronts for money laundering which would normally be investigated by the government (HMRC I guess?), but isn't being due to underfunding.
klelatti 4y ago
IIRC there was a piece in a recent Private Eye that investigated one of the operators of these stores. I seem to remember that they went into administration repeatedly owing VAT and other taxes. As you say little or no official follow up to deal with the issue or stop it happening again.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  I just read it today and it seems like they liquidate the company before accounts are due, thus not filing any accounts and technically not "owing" anything. I don't see why they'd bother with VAT and attract more attention to themselves when they're already evading insane amounts of tax, and since they're not filing any accounts it's not like the 80k£ threshold (where VAT registration is mandatory) applies to them.
  - klelatti 4y ago
    Thanks - interesting. Is it the really the case though that a company that trades for a few months and is then liquidated doesn't owe anything? Seems like a bit of a loophole!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
gnfargbl 4y ago
Using pop-up shops as a front for grift of some kind is as old as the hills. In the 90s/00s it was tanning salons, then hand car washes in the 00s/10s. Nail bars, vape shops and those weird places with the feet-eating fish should probably also get (dis)honourable mentions. Many UK public services are in real need of meaningful investment, but to connect that to this phenomenon without any kind of evidence is incredibly tenuous.
- truculent 4y ago
  Some reporting from a few years ago to back up the assertion that white collar crime is rising as a result of reduced state capacity: https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7... I would guess the situation has only got worse in the meantime.
88 4y ago
So with the UK government debt to GDP ratio at its highest level since WWII, your proposal is to… increase public sector spending… and lower taxes?
- pydry 4y ago
  There's an eye watering level of wealth at the top. Merely shifting tax burden a bit on to high end property would allow revenue neutral increased spending and lower taxes on the middle and working class. It might help keep a lid on that crisis of unaffordable housing as well that tends to follow when an excess of £££ is sloshing around.
  - 88 4y ago
    Perhaps we could do this with an NI increase that costs higher earners more, raising the NI threshold to benefit those on lower incomes, reducing fuel duty, and providing council tax rebates for those living in lower value properties?
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > There's an eye watering level of wealth at the top. the top 1% of UK earners account for 30% of all income tax. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-britain-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...
    - smcl 4y ago
      ... and could likely afford a good deal more with zero impact on their own standard of living
    - cjrp 4y ago
      Needs the context of what % of total wealth they own though surely?
    - pydry 4y ago
      Top 1% of wage earners, on the other hand... arent actually that rich but are taxed a lot. In London that gets you a fairly modest flat. The stratospherically wealthy dont have salaries they own yield bearing assets and have a much lower tax burden. This is where the real fat is. Nonetheless to the average person it's easy to confuse the two groups.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kmlx 4y ago
> austerity policies have cut back all public services to the point where they don't actually exist. the data doesn't seem to show this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-february-2022/public-spending-statistics-february-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-sta... spending on social protection and health have been going up like crazy. almost 500 billion gbp in a single year on those two alone. spending as a whole has been going up, now accounting for 51% of GDP. > Close to 10% of the entire country are currently on an NHS waiting list covid > Meanwhile, the tax burden in the UK has reached it's highest point in 70 years covid + nhs. While the pandemic was an extraordinary expense that has to be paid back, there is no easy solution for the NHS. People are living longer and longer, and the required pot of money for running the NHS is getting bigger and bigger. Something will need to change, and I think it will be more private healthcare.
- ratsforhorses 4y ago
  "there is no easy solution for the NHS. People are living longer and longer, and the required pot of money for running the NHS is getting bigger and bigger. Something will need to change, and I think it will be more private healthcare." Couldn't a solution be to outsource to countries where healthcare is cheaper? Taking advantage of the cheap flying options like Ryanair or Easyjet... As for immigration, why not use their (the immigrants) minds and manpower to deindustrialise agriculture and help turn England into a fruit and veg powerhouse... I mean the climate certainly has to have some advantages... In immigration it's interesting that Denmark is pursuing a similar deal with Rwanda https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwanda-transfer-asylum-seekers-2022-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Wasn't one of the reasons some people voted to leave the EU immigrants?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
flatearth22 4y ago

dataengineer56 4y ago

---

basisword 4y ago
The government’s plan has faced objections from across the political spectrum. It’s widely accepted that it’s highly immoral. The people that agree with it are by far a minority.
- Veen 4y ago
  It's unpopular with left-leaning journalists, lawyers, and politicians. Polls are mixed about whether it's popular with the general public, but that's what elections are for.
Jaruzel 4y ago
> In the plans, single men who arrive illegally in boats or lorries will be sent to Rwanda Which depending on which organisation you speak to, may or may not be legal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241 Personally, I'm embarrassed at how xenophobic and closed-minded my country has become.
- adwww 4y ago
  Also crossing the channel for the purpose of claiming asylum is not actually illegal.
Traster 4y ago
To claim asylum in the UK you must be physically present in the UK. Which means that functionally, there are no "proper channels" through which the vast majority of these asylum seekers could apply they have to cross the UK borders illegally first. But that wasn't the point of my comment, I was pointing out that this policy is only in place because the government has completely failed to prevent these border crossings and this policy is essentially just them giving up on trying. I would be quite surprised if the policy ever actually comes into effect given the timing of its announcement before the local elections.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I mean if the UK were to provide transportation into the UK they wouldn't arrive, as you call it, "illegaly". How do you seek asylum in the UK through proper channels, in your opinion? That said, it reminds me of the EU paying Libya and Turkey to keep migrants/asylum seekers from crossing over to Europe. I'm not convinced the migrants are being treated fairly. The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins; improve stability and economic outlook and the like. That said, another approach to reduce migration to the UK seems to be to make it less attractive.
- jl6 4y ago
  > The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins Migrants are typically among the most motivated people in the source country. They are the ones that can get it together to organize transport, travel a great distance, maybe learn a new language… altogether a great effort. Perhaps one way to improve circumstances in the country of origin would be for those people to stay at home and put their effort into their own country. But it turns out we actually like the economic consequences of having those type of immigrants in our country. They are, by and large, hard working and skilled. And so we continue to brain-drain the countries of origin, at their expense.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
altacc 4y ago
Without looking it up, are you aware of and can you identify the "proper channels" for claiming asylum in the UK? I ask as most people who claim asylum seekers should do so "properly & legally" are unable to describe what that process is and I find it odd that people keep referring to a process they have no idea about.
- maxehmookau 4y ago
  TalkRadio in the UK has a lot to answer for. Self-important blowhards spouting this nonsense day in and day out but, like you say, when you probe even slightly in to the detail, there's nothing.
  - altacc 4y ago
    I used to work in an office where colleagues insisted on listening to radio phone-ins and my choice was either headphones or deep hatred & anger towards the ignorant callers. Usual choice was headphones, better for the stress levels!
blibble 4y ago
> This is a very bitter /r/unitedkingdom-style comment, I don't expect to see things like this on HN. most posts about the UK now on HN turn into a /r/unitedkingdom whingefest about government policy mostly unrelated to the topic can you imagine if every post about something in the US was the same? mods need to step it up
- adwww 4y ago
  Or maybe it's just the common viewpoint among most computer-literate, non-retired Brits.
  - Veen 4y ago
    It tends to be more popular among middle class people, and much less popular among working class people who actually bear the brunt of uncontrolled immigration. It's not the middle classes who are struggling to find social housing or any housing at all.
    - klelatti 4y ago
      > uncontrolled immigration Obviously not true. Anyway blaming government failures such as social housing on immigration is a well known trick. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-crisis-in-uk-social-housing-happen https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-...
      - Veen 4y ago
        If anyone who can get in a boat in France can migrate to the UK, that is, by definition, uncontrolled. What you call "a well known trick" is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable argument, whatever the Guardian wants to say about it. It is fact that we have a massive shortfall in social housing. What caused that shortfall is largely irrelevant.
        klelatti 4y ago
        There are controls on immigration therefore it is not uncontrolled. The fact that a few desperate people are prepared to risk their lives in the Channel doesn't make it uncontrolled. "Not building enough social housing is largely irrelevant to dealing with the social housing crisis." Hmmm.

Veen 4y ago

How would you suggest the UK "stops the small boats"? Any attempt to stop them by force or push them back would result in a large number of drowned migrants. The only way to stop them is to discourage them from getting in the boats in the first place. It would be nice if the French did that on their side of the channel, but they don't. The point of the Rwanda scheme is to make getting in the boat an undesirable option, because you'll just end up somewhere you don't want to be. The hope is that few people will have to be sent to Rwanda because they'll stop paying people smugglers to make the trip.

regularfry 4y ago
Why this false dichotomy? Either we do whatever authoritarian crap the Home Office are pushing this month or it's pushing people back into the sea and drowning them? No. What will discourage people from getting into boats is to provide safe routes in. Literally a desk in Calais where you can walk up and say "I'm going to request asylum and need a ferry ticket, have Borders Agency meet me at the other side please" would undercut the people smugglers to the extent that you wouldn't have boats any more. The French offered us almost exactly this but we turned them down.
- matthew40 4y ago
  Then you should be happy because Rwanda will do exactly what you said the French should have done.
  - regularfry 4y ago
    Except they won't. The deportations are for asylum application in Rwanda, not to process them for onward passage back to the UK. This is trivial stuff. Besides which, costs per applicant under a "desk in Calais" scheme would cost peanuts. Remind me how much the Rwanda scheme costs, per asylum seeker?
- Veen 4y ago
  And when an asylum claim fails, what happens to the asylum seeker? The French won't take them back, so what generally happens is that they stay in the UK regardless of whether the claim is justified. That's equivalent to having open borders, which I suspect is the underlying objective of many who strongly object to this scheme. Plus, of course, they are already in France. They could claim asylum there.

bencollier49 4y ago

Am I missing something fundamental here? What have London sweet shops got to do with UK government spending? Rents on Oxford Street, perhaps? Or is this a foreign key problem? EDIT: I think the parent poster has added a last line to clarify, or maybe I missed it to begin with. Makes sense now.

lordnacho 4y ago
The government needs to spend money on the judicial system, otherwise we can't prosecute criminals and society is infested with them.
nicoburns 4y ago
The suggestion is that they are fronts for money laundering which would normally be investigated by the government (HMRC I guess?), but isn't being due to underfunding.

klelatti 4y ago

IIRC there was a piece in a recent Private Eye that investigated one of the operators of these stores. I seem to remember that they went into administration repeatedly owing VAT and other taxes. As you say little or no official follow up to deal with the issue or stop it happening again.

Nextgrid 4y ago
I just read it today and it seems like they liquidate the company before accounts are due, thus not filing any accounts and technically not "owing" anything. I don't see why they'd bother with VAT and attract more attention to themselves when they're already evading insane amounts of tax, and since they're not filing any accounts it's not like the 80k£ threshold (where VAT registration is mandatory) applies to them.
- klelatti 4y ago
  Thanks - interesting. Is it the really the case though that a company that trades for a few months and is then liquidated doesn't owe anything? Seems like a bit of a loophole!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

gnfargbl 4y ago

Using pop-up shops as a front for grift of some kind is as old as the hills. In the 90s/00s it was tanning salons, then hand car washes in the 00s/10s. Nail bars, vape shops and those weird places with the feet-eating fish should probably also get (dis)honourable mentions. Many UK public services are in real need of meaningful investment, but to connect that to this phenomenon without any kind of evidence is incredibly tenuous.

truculent 4y ago
Some reporting from a few years ago to back up the assertion that white collar crime is rising as a result of reduced state capacity: https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7... I would guess the situation has only got worse in the meantime.

88 4y ago

So with the UK government debt to GDP ratio at its highest level since WWII, your proposal is to… increase public sector spending… and lower taxes?

pydry 4y ago
There's an eye watering level of wealth at the top. Merely shifting tax burden a bit on to high end property would allow revenue neutral increased spending and lower taxes on the middle and working class. It might help keep a lid on that crisis of unaffordable housing as well that tends to follow when an excess of £££ is sloshing around.
- 88 4y ago
  Perhaps we could do this with an NI increase that costs higher earners more, raising the NI threshold to benefit those on lower incomes, reducing fuel duty, and providing council tax rebates for those living in lower value properties?
- kmlx 4y ago
  > There's an eye watering level of wealth at the top. the top 1% of UK earners account for 30% of all income tax. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-britain-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...
  - smcl 4y ago
    ... and could likely afford a good deal more with zero impact on their own standard of living
  - cjrp 4y ago
    Needs the context of what % of total wealth they own though surely?
  - pydry 4y ago
    Top 1% of wage earners, on the other hand... arent actually that rich but are taxed a lot. In London that gets you a fairly modest flat. The stratospherically wealthy dont have salaries they own yield bearing assets and have a much lower tax burden. This is where the real fat is. Nonetheless to the average person it's easy to confuse the two groups.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kmlx 4y ago

> austerity policies have cut back all public services to the point where they don't actually exist. the data doesn't seem to show this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-february-2022/public-spending-statistics-february-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-sta... spending on social protection and health have been going up like crazy. almost 500 billion gbp in a single year on those two alone. spending as a whole has been going up, now accounting for 51% of GDP. > Close to 10% of the entire country are currently on an NHS waiting list covid > Meanwhile, the tax burden in the UK has reached it's highest point in 70 years covid + nhs. While the pandemic was an extraordinary expense that has to be paid back, there is no easy solution for the NHS. People are living longer and longer, and the required pot of money for running the NHS is getting bigger and bigger. Something will need to change, and I think it will be more private healthcare.

ratsforhorses 4y ago
"there is no easy solution for the NHS. People are living longer and longer, and the required pot of money for running the NHS is getting bigger and bigger. Something will need to change, and I think it will be more private healthcare." Couldn't a solution be to outsource to countries where healthcare is cheaper? Taking advantage of the cheap flying options like Ryanair or Easyjet... As for immigration, why not use their (the immigrants) minds and manpower to deindustrialise agriculture and help turn England into a fruit and veg powerhouse... I mean the climate certainly has to have some advantages... In immigration it's interesting that Denmark is pursuing a similar deal with Rwanda https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwanda-transfer-asylum-seekers-2022-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...
- themitigating 4y ago
  Wasn't one of the reasons some people voted to leave the EU immigrants?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

flatearth22 4y ago