By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Why because I believe people bend the figures a bit?
Because you've been presented with the evidence numerous times and each time you've refused to even look at it and then attempted to poison the wall with misinformation such as the fact the numbers might be manipulated without any evidence at all to support that conclusion.
It shouldn't be allowed and hopefully it will be stopped.
Because you've been presented with the evidence numerous times and each time you've refused to even look at it and then attempted to poison the wall with misinformation such as the fact the numbers might be manipulated without any evidence at all to support that conclusion.
It shouldn't be allowed and hopefully it will be stopped.
I respectfully still don't agree for a number of reasons:
I will use the same stats to construct a different false conclusion.
Using the governments numbers, the lowest annual figure was in 2023 under a Conservative government, where there was a 33% reduction on the prior year. 2023 has the lowest number of crossings in any of the years quoted.
I would only accept that direct government policy is successful when small boat crossing are down below 10,000. At present, the numbers from the prior 4 years just show volatility. There is no way you can draw a causal effect from government policy.
I don't think that's a fair analysis. You've stated an arbitrary number and then said unless that is reached nothing has made a difference.
A 40% reduction year-on-year would seem to be outside the bounds of just volatility. Linear scaling of the current number would result in a total number 25% less than the year you cited. I don't know if linear scaling is correct here as I would have to look at crossings by month but it seems appropriate given the figures are for half a year.
It looks like some conclusions for the drop in 2023 are bad weather and an agreement with the Albanian government.
2018: 299 people 2019: 1,843 people 2020: 8,466 people 2021: 28,526 people 2022: 45,755 people (peak) 2023: 29,437 people 2024: 36,816 people 2025: 41,472 people 2026: 11,054 detections between Jan 1 and June 21
Looking at the trend I do think it's wrong to dismiss the reduction as simple noise and volatility. We will have to see how the data pans out over time.
Because you've been presented with the evidence numerous times and each time you've refused to even look at it and then attempted to poison the wall with misinformation such as the fact the numbers might be manipulated without any evidence at all to support that conclusion.
It shouldn't be allowed and hopefully it will be stopped.
SB
The data is very likely accurate, but observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts
A number of Labour MPs, including Stephen Kinnock said they they regret not voting for May’s deal at the time
Sadly, the hostility of the vast majority of Labour MPs to Corbyn clouded their judgment and made them oppose the truly democratic approach that Corbyn favoured, namely, to accept the Brexit vote and try to get the best possible Brexit.
Indeed, there were even two sets of indicative free votes where Ken Clarke's Custom Union option came within 3 votes of winning.
And had Brexit gone through at that stage, we might never have had Johnson or the Red Wall. But that wouldn't have suited those opposed to Corbyn given how well he had done in 2017.
The data is very likely accurate, but observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts
He's said the data itself is inaccurate across a number of threads when it's been raised.
"observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts"
Not sure I agree, that sounds like you don't like the conclusions that come from the data so you're trying to dismiss it by muddying the waters.
Can you provide some direct evidence that the conclusions are not correct and that the changes aren't statistically outside the bounds of expected volatility?
I respectfully still don't agree for a number of reasons:
I will use the same stats to construct a different false conclusion.
Using the governments numbers, the lowest annual figure was in 2023 under a Conservative government, where there was a 33% reduction on the prior year. 2023 has the lowest number of crossings in any of the years quoted.
I would only accept that direct government policy is successful when small boat crossing are down below 10,000. At present, the numbers from the prior 4 years just show volatility. There is no way you can draw a causal effect from government policy.
I think you’re broadly right that it’s very hard to directly correlate government efforts to seasonal/annual fluctuations. Numbers are coming down, but whether they continue to, we’ll have to wait and see.
The government approach does seem sensible though. Trying to disrupt supply chains and gang networks across Europe by working with other nations seems logical. They’re significantly increasing returns despite us losing the ability to automatically do so after leaving the EU - on the face of it that seems a particularly difficult challenge that’s being handled much better now.
Trouble is, it only takes another conflict or tinpot dictator to pop up and the demand sky rockets again. I wouldn’t have thought it’s possible to stop. Arbitrary targets aren’t a good measure of whether effective action is being taken. Once the genie is out of the bottle (realisation that small boat crossings were possible) it’s very hard to put it back in again.
He's said the data itself is inaccurate across a number of threads when it's been raised.
"observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts"
Not sure I agree, that sounds like you don't like the conclusions that come from the data so you're trying to dismiss it by muddying the waters.
Can you provide some direct evidence that the conclusions are not correct and that the changes aren't statistically outside the bounds of expected volatility?
SB
I will let him comment on his own posts as he probably knows better what he thinks than I do!
The data set is too small and we probably wouldn't want to use smaller intervals like quarterly data as it's too impacted by seasonality.
It seems we are saying (or at least Starmer is) that small boat crossings are falling and therefore it's an achievement of his. I wouldn't agree with that based on the very small sample because none of us would be surprised if the 2026 number sees an increase.
Can you provide some direct evidence that the conclusions are not correct and that the changes aren't statistically outside the bounds of expected volatility?
The conclusions is a subjective one, that Starmer can claim this as a success. But based on what. My 'evidence' based on the data set is that 2023 had the lowest absolute number, but I wouldn't suggest that was a result of policy or a trend that would have continued without a change of government.
Why because I believe people bend the figures a bit?
So prove they’re bent rather than dismiss data because it doesn’t fit your view. If you can do that then you’ve got a position to defend. Just not believing data is pure conspiracy.
I think you’re broadly right that it’s very hard to directly correlate government efforts to seasonal/annual fluctuations. Numbers are coming down, but whether they continue to, we’ll have to wait and see.
The government approach does seem sensible though. Trying to disrupt supply chains and gang networks across Europe by working with other nations seems logical. They’re significantly increasing returns despite us losing the ability to automatically do so after leaving the EU - on the face of it that seems a particularly difficult challenge that’s being handled much better now.
Trouble is, it only takes another conflict or tinpot dictator to pop up and the demand sky rockets again. I wouldn’t have thought it’s possible to stop. Arbitrary targets aren’t a good measure of whether effective action is being taken. Once the genie is out of the bottle (realisation that small boat crossings were possible) it’s very hard to put it back in again.
[Post edited 24 Jun 8:18]
I think your post is entirely fair. Only incredibly drastic/extreme action is likely to reduce that number below 10,000 and many of us wouldn't like what that involves.
I have observed posts for many months on this forum and only just started contributing. I am economically centre-right and a liberal, but hope to make fair arguments.
He's said the data itself is inaccurate across a number of threads when it's been raised.
"observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts"
Not sure I agree, that sounds like you don't like the conclusions that come from the data so you're trying to dismiss it by muddying the waters.
Can you provide some direct evidence that the conclusions are not correct and that the changes aren't statistically outside the bounds of expected volatility?
SB
For me, I think the whole debate is centered on the assumption that people fleeing persecution/war/famine and arriving by boat are somehow "bad people" and should be turned away.
How about us actually choosing to welcome refugees and welcoming them into our country to live, work and contribute to society. It's almost as if some people (not you) just don't like foreigners.
Those who are playing the system of course should be returned home but given that 80 odd percent of asylum applications are successful it suggests the majority arriving by boat are genuine refugees and rather than obsessing with placating the far right and their racist cheerleaders, we could look at ways of providing safe passage to genuine refugees from places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
The whole narrative and debate is centered on an assumption that people arriving by boat are "undesirable" rather than the fact that desperate people are risking their lives because of our refusal to even consider cases for refugee status for people outside the schemes we have set up.
Labour politicians have done little to challenge that narrative that appeals to so many who are basically racists yet so vociferous in objecting to being called out.
Provide safe routes and the business model of the criminal gangs collapses. Refugees assessed and welcomed and make the argument that our falling birth rates mean without significant migration in an aging population will make for a society where agriculture, hospitality and care homes will struggle to function.
Given the choice of an immigrant (refugee or otherwise) serving you a pint, picking your fruit or looking after Grannie in a care home or none of the above, I think I know what makes more sense to me.
For me, I think the whole debate is centered on the assumption that people fleeing persecution/war/famine and arriving by boat are somehow "bad people" and should be turned away.
How about us actually choosing to welcome refugees and welcoming them into our country to live, work and contribute to society. It's almost as if some people (not you) just don't like foreigners.
Those who are playing the system of course should be returned home but given that 80 odd percent of asylum applications are successful it suggests the majority arriving by boat are genuine refugees and rather than obsessing with placating the far right and their racist cheerleaders, we could look at ways of providing safe passage to genuine refugees from places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
The whole narrative and debate is centered on an assumption that people arriving by boat are "undesirable" rather than the fact that desperate people are risking their lives because of our refusal to even consider cases for refugee status for people outside the schemes we have set up.
Labour politicians have done little to challenge that narrative that appeals to so many who are basically racists yet so vociferous in objecting to being called out.
Provide safe routes and the business model of the criminal gangs collapses. Refugees assessed and welcomed and make the argument that our falling birth rates mean without significant migration in an aging population will make for a society where agriculture, hospitality and care homes will struggle to function.
Given the choice of an immigrant (refugee or otherwise) serving you a pint, picking your fruit or looking after Grannie in a care home or none of the above, I think I know what makes more sense to me.
I partly agree with this, I certainly wouldn't want to fall into the trap of demonising these people. However, I do think this means of coming to the UK should be stopped. The demographic of many of those who have come in the past doesn't fit the refugee definition. For example, in 2022 many of those coming by boat (40%) were Albanian. Albania was defined as a safe country and aspires to be in the EU and NATO. The Conservative came up with a deal and reduced that number! hurrah!
There is no conflict in my mind between making the positive case for migration alongside the need to reduce illegal migration. It's only because of the lack of conviction politicians for the last 25 years that means this case has not been made. Illegal migration results in criminality, people being trafficked, people being drowned and societal mistrust. It's absolutely fine for people in the UK to not want illegal migration without being accused of being racist.
Many are now from Eritrea and there should probably be a better means of them applying for asylum. However, I am sceptical that having so called 'safe routes' will result in a reduction in illegal migration. They are two separate migration phenomenons.
I think you’re broadly right that it’s very hard to directly correlate government efforts to seasonal/annual fluctuations. Numbers are coming down, but whether they continue to, we’ll have to wait and see.
The government approach does seem sensible though. Trying to disrupt supply chains and gang networks across Europe by working with other nations seems logical. They’re significantly increasing returns despite us losing the ability to automatically do so after leaving the EU - on the face of it that seems a particularly difficult challenge that’s being handled much better now.
Trouble is, it only takes another conflict or tinpot dictator to pop up and the demand sky rockets again. I wouldn’t have thought it’s possible to stop. Arbitrary targets aren’t a good measure of whether effective action is being taken. Once the genie is out of the bottle (realisation that small boat crossings were possible) it’s very hard to put it back in again.
[Post edited 24 Jun 8:18]
I just scrolled through the opinion pieces on the Guardian website (always entertaining for someone of my politics). OJ has written an absolute take down piece on Starmer! Makes any of my mild observations pale away.....
I partly agree with this, I certainly wouldn't want to fall into the trap of demonising these people. However, I do think this means of coming to the UK should be stopped. The demographic of many of those who have come in the past doesn't fit the refugee definition. For example, in 2022 many of those coming by boat (40%) were Albanian. Albania was defined as a safe country and aspires to be in the EU and NATO. The Conservative came up with a deal and reduced that number! hurrah!
There is no conflict in my mind between making the positive case for migration alongside the need to reduce illegal migration. It's only because of the lack of conviction politicians for the last 25 years that means this case has not been made. Illegal migration results in criminality, people being trafficked, people being drowned and societal mistrust. It's absolutely fine for people in the UK to not want illegal migration without being accused of being racist.
Many are now from Eritrea and there should probably be a better means of them applying for asylum. However, I am sceptical that having so called 'safe routes' will result in a reduction in illegal migration. They are two separate migration phenomenons.
in the end, reducing the number of people coming by this route involves changing our process and criteria for assessing asylum claims. these have changed completely since the original treaty, largely driven by courts not policy makers. we need to return to a narrower reading of 'well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion' and push back against the expansionary interpretation by courts.
one of the many bad consequences of brexit seems to be that we no longer share asylum data with the rest of the eu. it is suggested, but we don't have the data to know, that a large proportion of those arriving on small boats have already had claims rejected in the eu.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
He's said the data itself is inaccurate across a number of threads when it's been raised.
"observations based on it that haver any sort of political relevance are not facts"
Not sure I agree, that sounds like you don't like the conclusions that come from the data so you're trying to dismiss it by muddying the waters.
Can you provide some direct evidence that the conclusions are not correct and that the changes aren't statistically outside the bounds of expected volatility?
SB
The problem with data is that it is often inaccurate, based on the wrong questions or published in the face of conflicting data because it serves political purpose. Information withheld, well sourced truths covered up, bad news buried, heads demanded on platters to save their own, information (sometimes misinformation) fed to the press to create a story and mug off the plebs.
Politicians have been doing it for years. The first time I saw it in the raw was at the time of the Child Benefit Details loss and the financial crisis around 2008. The dying Labour government used every trick in the book as they drowned under the weight of their own incompetence.
Then we had the coalition and the lies spewed to justify their crazy austerity (ideological) programme. Then the nonsense of Scottish referendum followed by Brexit which took the insanity to new heights. You’ll never believe what ‘data’, facts and statistics were produced for that. Some of it by me! It’s not hard to understand why I’m skeptical about facts and statics along with those who produce them.
On to Starmer. I don’t know much about him tbh. In my time he was in opposition and all I saw was his HoC apposition to Brexit. He was not involved in committees.
He allegedly racked up 3x the level of expenses to that of his predecessor. So much for thinking of the country there. I doubt he stopped when he got the big job and the PMs chauffeur driven car. I doubt the man has done anything illegal but it’s clear he enjoys the good things in life, especially if they are free.
As a PM? Utterly useless. A sharp suit, winning smile and designer sunglasses doesn’t make him a good leader. He isn’t. Is he worse than his predecessors? No. But that doesn’t make him any good. Why do I think this? Aside from directly telling porkies on defence or at best disguising the truth, every action he and his government has taken has been about ‘the party’ and from that themselves. The people of this country? They’ve no interest whatsoever. Only in those they perceive will support them.
Will he be missed? Not in the least. Let’s face it, we’d be better off if they put Larry the Downing Street cat in charge.
On the subject of this forum, everyone is entitled to a view. If it’s restricted to those that support a particular line it becomes a boring waste of time.
The problem with data is that it is often inaccurate, based on the wrong questions or published in the face of conflicting data because it serves political purpose. Information withheld, well sourced truths covered up, bad news buried, heads demanded on platters to save their own, information (sometimes misinformation) fed to the press to create a story and mug off the plebs.
Politicians have been doing it for years. The first time I saw it in the raw was at the time of the Child Benefit Details loss and the financial crisis around 2008. The dying Labour government used every trick in the book as they drowned under the weight of their own incompetence.
Then we had the coalition and the lies spewed to justify their crazy austerity (ideological) programme. Then the nonsense of Scottish referendum followed by Brexit which took the insanity to new heights. You’ll never believe what ‘data’, facts and statistics were produced for that. Some of it by me! It’s not hard to understand why I’m skeptical about facts and statics along with those who produce them.
On to Starmer. I don’t know much about him tbh. In my time he was in opposition and all I saw was his HoC apposition to Brexit. He was not involved in committees.
He allegedly racked up 3x the level of expenses to that of his predecessor. So much for thinking of the country there. I doubt he stopped when he got the big job and the PMs chauffeur driven car. I doubt the man has done anything illegal but it’s clear he enjoys the good things in life, especially if they are free.
As a PM? Utterly useless. A sharp suit, winning smile and designer sunglasses doesn’t make him a good leader. He isn’t. Is he worse than his predecessors? No. But that doesn’t make him any good. Why do I think this? Aside from directly telling porkies on defence or at best disguising the truth, every action he and his government has taken has been about ‘the party’ and from that themselves. The people of this country? They’ve no interest whatsoever. Only in those they perceive will support them.
Will he be missed? Not in the least. Let’s face it, we’d be better off if they put Larry the Downing Street cat in charge.
On the subject of this forum, everyone is entitled to a view. If it’s restricted to those that support a particular line it becomes a boring waste of time.
The problem with data is that it is often inaccurate, based on the wrong questions or published in the face of conflicting data because it serves political purpose. Information withheld, well sourced truths covered up, bad news buried, heads demanded on platters to save their own, information (sometimes misinformation) fed to the press to create a story and mug off the plebs.
Politicians have been doing it for years. The first time I saw it in the raw was at the time of the Child Benefit Details loss and the financial crisis around 2008. The dying Labour government used every trick in the book as they drowned under the weight of their own incompetence.
Then we had the coalition and the lies spewed to justify their crazy austerity (ideological) programme. Then the nonsense of Scottish referendum followed by Brexit which took the insanity to new heights. You’ll never believe what ‘data’, facts and statistics were produced for that. Some of it by me! It’s not hard to understand why I’m skeptical about facts and statics along with those who produce them.
On to Starmer. I don’t know much about him tbh. In my time he was in opposition and all I saw was his HoC apposition to Brexit. He was not involved in committees.
He allegedly racked up 3x the level of expenses to that of his predecessor. So much for thinking of the country there. I doubt he stopped when he got the big job and the PMs chauffeur driven car. I doubt the man has done anything illegal but it’s clear he enjoys the good things in life, especially if they are free.
As a PM? Utterly useless. A sharp suit, winning smile and designer sunglasses doesn’t make him a good leader. He isn’t. Is he worse than his predecessors? No. But that doesn’t make him any good. Why do I think this? Aside from directly telling porkies on defence or at best disguising the truth, every action he and his government has taken has been about ‘the party’ and from that themselves. The people of this country? They’ve no interest whatsoever. Only in those they perceive will support them.
Will he be missed? Not in the least. Let’s face it, we’d be better off if they put Larry the Downing Street cat in charge.
On the subject of this forum, everyone is entitled to a view. If it’s restricted to those that support a particular line it becomes a boring waste of time.
Brilliantly put, especially the last sentence.
The decline in standards of both front benches coupled with increasing expectations is a bad combo.
If I was to make a crass observation of the 'left' in general it's the hooking of blame to single issues of individuals to explain the current problems. Thatcher, Brexit etc. In reality I think it's much wider than that. We can't continue to sustain our levels of borrowing and high taxation. It won't work and it will be the same across Europe. It's not a circle I can see being squared.
Burnham is a career politician with absolutely no strategy or vision. It's more of the same. The emptiest of suits. Lots of this sits with New Labour and their slow burn revolution (Supreme Court, devolution, QANGOs and much else)
The decline in standards of both front benches coupled with increasing expectations is a bad combo.
If I was to make a crass observation of the 'left' in general it's the hooking of blame to single issues of individuals to explain the current problems. Thatcher, Brexit etc. In reality I think it's much wider than that. We can't continue to sustain our levels of borrowing and high taxation. It won't work and it will be the same across Europe. It's not a circle I can see being squared.
Burnham is a career politician with absolutely no strategy or vision. It's more of the same. The emptiest of suits. Lots of this sits with New Labour and their slow burn revolution (Supreme Court, devolution, QANGOs and much else)
What on earth are you on about. How do you know about burnhams strategy or vision at this stage?!
What are you talking about in respect of the supreme court?! Or even devolution and quangis?! Mindless innuendo. Stop it.
The problem with data is that it is often inaccurate, based on the wrong questions or published in the face of conflicting data because it serves political purpose. Information withheld, well sourced truths covered up, bad news buried, heads demanded on platters to save their own, information (sometimes misinformation) fed to the press to create a story and mug off the plebs.
Politicians have been doing it for years. The first time I saw it in the raw was at the time of the Child Benefit Details loss and the financial crisis around 2008. The dying Labour government used every trick in the book as they drowned under the weight of their own incompetence.
Then we had the coalition and the lies spewed to justify their crazy austerity (ideological) programme. Then the nonsense of Scottish referendum followed by Brexit which took the insanity to new heights. You’ll never believe what ‘data’, facts and statistics were produced for that. Some of it by me! It’s not hard to understand why I’m skeptical about facts and statics along with those who produce them.
On to Starmer. I don’t know much about him tbh. In my time he was in opposition and all I saw was his HoC apposition to Brexit. He was not involved in committees.
He allegedly racked up 3x the level of expenses to that of his predecessor. So much for thinking of the country there. I doubt he stopped when he got the big job and the PMs chauffeur driven car. I doubt the man has done anything illegal but it’s clear he enjoys the good things in life, especially if they are free.
As a PM? Utterly useless. A sharp suit, winning smile and designer sunglasses doesn’t make him a good leader. He isn’t. Is he worse than his predecessors? No. But that doesn’t make him any good. Why do I think this? Aside from directly telling porkies on defence or at best disguising the truth, every action he and his government has taken has been about ‘the party’ and from that themselves. The people of this country? They’ve no interest whatsoever. Only in those they perceive will support them.
Will he be missed? Not in the least. Let’s face it, we’d be better off if they put Larry the Downing Street cat in charge.
On the subject of this forum, everyone is entitled to a view. If it’s restricted to those that support a particular line it becomes a boring waste of time.
Completely agree with your last paragraph.
Don't cry because it's over; smile because it happened.
What on earth are you on about. How do you know about burnhams strategy or vision at this stage?!
What are you talking about in respect of the supreme court?! Or even devolution and quangis?! Mindless innuendo. Stop it.
Absolutely not. I politely request that you challenge the points and not request me not to post.
The creation of the Supreme Court politicised the Judiciary, but it was one of a number of moves from new Labour that I think has contributed to where we are today. Namely, that elected government deviated more from its manifesto and enacted changes that nobody understood the long term implications of. That was a relatively new concept in UK politics and hugely increased the number of state employees. As a result, the civil service has a greater control than ever over the direction of government.
As for Burnham, I could loosely describe his strategy as similar to Starmer's. However, his popularity will slide (already has) and I suspect he will have 3 years as PM and do roughly as much as his predecessor.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
