Off Topic Lord Mayor

Don't remember too many comments about the present cabinet - none of them have ever had a proper job in the real world and plenty of people voted for them - having said that most people now realise that was a mistake

 

Why not if you don’t mind me asking? A richer Hull benefits all of East Yorkshire. Hull is able to attract more funding if it brings in the more wealthy areas of East Yorkshire that it currently has no control over.

 

He isn't going to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he's only getting a 13.5M annual budget to manage so why assume his incompetence? People will want him to fail because he's ruffled their feathers, the local authorities needed this shake up.

 

Not a fair insinuation you are making at all.
A few have asked, so here goes. I really hope it doesn't lead to the thread being stopped. Tbf, given the way it's been going I don't see why it should.

First off a good start would be actually read Reform's 'contract'.

In terms of what I would like to see, for example:
1. Declare an immediate national emergency. That is what it has become (already a long time ago).
2. Declare that anyone entering the country illegally will not, and never will, be allowed right to stay here. If the definition of illegally gets your back up then just go with unofficial routes / methods of entry. There is no valid reason to be crossing the channel to escape.
3. Establish detention centres. Hold all 'illegal' immigrants there until returned or removed to a 3rd party country or they request themselves to leave. No freedom of movement in and out. It is absolutely crazy that 'illegal' immigrants are placed around the country, be that in hotels or in housing. I was listening to an expert the other day on provision / establishment of prefab type accommodation. Villages could be established in relatively next to no time at all, on unused government land, away from population centres and at low costs compared to the currrent approach. Such accommodation would still be perfectly 'humane' and would be serviced appropriately. What we currently do is beyond crazy imo (in terms of cost, security, risk, impact on local communities, welfare of 'illegals', etc etc).
4. If necessary, leave the ECHR which is being (ab)used in ways it was never meant to be. Replace with our own bill of rights (and responsibilities) if required; that said, it's not like the UK would suddenly descend into North Korea or something, there's plenty of other legislation, safety nets, practices etc already in place.
5. Limit to 1 appeal at the most (although that would become a non-issue with the above anyway).

I support legal routes and the associated processes.

Others would go harder, with higher risk approaches (turning the boats back etc). I agree we should be doing far more to stop them launching in the first place, but I would not advocate turning the boats back.

Rushed answer as I have to go. But hopefully enough there to show that a) it isn't difficult, b) it would not take any time at all c) it's not dangerous. To my mind it's all so friggin obvious. I just don't get why Tories and now Labour don't show some balls.

 

I don’t want him to fail. Being mayor isn’t a pretty job, I don’t really think he knows what he’s got himself in for hence why I think he will fail

 

Would you support establishing more legal routes of entry into the U.K. as an Asylum Seeker?

As it stands the Governments own advice is to claim asylum when you reach the U.K so as long as people do that then they aren’t illegal. https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

 

I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but doing so would need to be beneficial to both sides, and I genuinely don't know how any merge would benefit me as a East Riding resident. Instinctively, they are two distinct community identities both of which have their own local priorities, I don't know how you balance the rural needs of ER with the urban ones of Hull.

 

But I think if you improve Hull - ER has a knock on effect.

For example - more well paid jobs in Hull brings more wealth into the ER and creates a better economy for both areas. Means more people spend money and improves tax returns. Improved services in Hull creates better access for the whole area in terms of people visiting and spending money here.

Rural areas without major cities doing well suffer as a result.

Hull, Beverley, Bridlington, Goole, Market Weighton and Driffield all need to work together as best they can in my eyes.

 

Good. It will be a challenge no doubt.
I'm just trying to work out why our budget is significantly less than Lincolnshire and York and North Yorkshire combined authorities get, there definitely looks to be room to increase it, remember levelling up, that's what we need from the new Mayor, there's the challenge.

 

Doesn't that already happen? Where do most of City's players live, for example? I guess in the West Hull villages (ER). Totally agree that everyone needs to be working together.

 

Yes - so the money goes to ER Council.

That’s the point I guess I’m trying to make - the wealthiest people in Hull pay their taxes to ER and Hull CC loses out.

 

Asylum? You have opted to cross the Channel in an overcrowded rubber dinghy to escape what? What perils are there in France, or the myriad other countries you have passed through?
None.
This is the land of plenty. This is where everything is "all free". The story you have been told over and over again, as you hand over every last penny to your name to the nice, kind, smiling person who promises you he can get you there.

 

He's won!
































































Only joking....I don't know really!

 

It feels like the majority of the benefit is for Hull, not ER. Rightly or wrongly. For any merge to be successful, there has to be benefits for both sides, otherwise it'd never pass a referendum. Didn't ER do a non-binding vote a few years ago now about a similar topic when the people returned a resounding no? "Something" needs to change for peoples opinion to also change.

 

There isn't one before him, it's a new position.

 

The problem with that is, are we deporting more than are arriving illegally. I suspect the answer is NO!!!

 

But isn’t a rise in deportations year on year a start?

There is a huge backlog in asylum applications - this Government have had two years to start clearing that. Shouldn’t we judge it after they’ve had longer to do get ut going faster and faster? It was never going to be an overnight thing.

 

Just to enhance your point, they've actually had less than one year.

 

[QUOTE="Drew, post: 18345153, member: 1017245"]But isn’t a rise in deportations year on year a start?

There is a huge backlog in asylum applications - this Government have had two years to start clearing that. Shouldn’t we judge it after they’ve had longer to do get ut going faster and faster? It was never going to be an overnight thing.[/QUOTE]

Personally speaking,. no.... when you allow 10 in and kick one out, that is never going to ease the burden on the backlog. To say deportations are up, is it 10% , 20% 50% and then when we've stablished that, the question of what was the starting position comes next.

 

So are we engaging in asylum processes or not? If we leave it to other countries, won’t asylum seekers continue to try and get here?

Or we can have a better discussion about how people claim asylum in the U.K. to help with our backlog and try to prevent people being here illegally?

What is set up at the moment clearly isn’t working but promising to shut up shop also feels destined to failure.