The Home Secretary had more than a year as Justice Secretary. She let out a lot of prisoners early, watched as wrongful releases rose in numbers, allowed a weakening of control over the prisons and was promoted to leave Mr Lammy with a difficult inheritance where he blamed his predecessors.
She now tells us she is carrying out the biggest ever changes to our immigration system. I doubt that. The biggest changes have been made by the European Court of Human Rights endlessly extending the grounds to allow more and more people to come and stay against the wishes of many voters and past Ministers. Big changes were made during our period in the EU when we had to have open borders. Brexit has stopped the flows of EU nationals, only to see many more coming from non EU countries as government, the public sector employers and business have welcomed more and more in to take lower paid jobs and then to be joined by dependents.
The present package of measures can help a bit, but does not go far enough to stop the boats and smash the gangs, nor to relieve the pressures of legal migration on homes, infrastructure and benefits.
When will she produce draft legislation and when will it pass the Commons? Why the delay?
How can she limit the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights over migration cases when the government is firm that it wishes to abide by international law and the Convention? She will need to negotiate and agree changes with the ECHR which will take time and give limited or no improvement.
When she says people granted asylum may need to return to their home countries if the UK view of these countries changes, how will she enforce deportation if the people want to stay? What will be the status of children born here to people granted refuge?
How often will the government make a new assessment of a country’s risks and status? Will Afghanistan under the Taliban ever be deemed safe? Sudan in civil war? Iran under the theocracy?
When she offers additional legal routes for people to seek asylum, will there be any limit on numbers? Could we see all the people currently coming by illegal boat simply being able to come legally with speedier processing? Will people using these legal routes require prior vetting on the continent before being allowed to come here by boat or plane from France?
It is important to both reduce legal migration substantially and stop illegal. These measures will not do either.
November 18, 2025
None of us believe the political class will sort out immigration, legal or illegal. We apparently no longer have birthright citizenship, so problems remain for people with one British parent.
We now need mass migration. Mass deportations. Only Rupert Lowe has what it takes and has laid out exactly how to proceed. His policy paper is freely downloadable from his website or insta account.
If politicians will not do it you know what comes next. The Sovereigns, the People, will take charge.
November 18, 2025
Correct Lynn. The country is like a tinder box. Another incident like Southport and the country will rebel. It’s already started in Ireland and could quickly catch on here.
The latest wheeze of putting thieves and potential rapists in barracks near married quarters is absolutely stupid. Does the government think squadies will stand back and watch their families attacked.
Mahmood knows there measures will not get through parliament, it’s just window dressing.
November 18, 2025
There’s a leadership contest underway. Two-Tier’s absence from the Chamber spoke volumes yesterday.
The announcement was basically to the marginally more sensible wing of the Party: “I wanna be Leader …. pretty please make me the first Muslim PM?”
November 18, 2025
Wasn’t present in the chamber? Is he in the country? He’s slipping, being here when something is announced. Normally hiding away in some foreign clime.
November 19, 2025
Since learned he was in Berlin presumably selling out Brexit, kowtowing to Germany and France again.
November 18, 2025
Even birthright citizenship can be cuckoo, Lynn.
A child born in the UK with English parents is similarly and properly referred to as English.
If, however during a day trip their mother happened to give birth in France, the child would be regarded as French.
An incidental place of birth does not define what a person is. It is their parentage and long-term environment which confers heritage.
Should someone become ‘English’ and be granted refuge, solely by being born in England?
By the same token: a hen hatching her eggs in a stable would be giving birth to horses!
November 18, 2025
No, the removal of ‘birthright’ citizenship was a step forward. One of the Party leaders would not be in the U.K. if the had pertained when her parent suddenly and inexplicably arrived in the U.K. immediately prior to her birth,
Nations are feeling very vulnerable, so it’s dangerous for people who are not obviously a members of the nation. I know, my English family in South Africa have been running the gauntlet for a while. From 150 paces everyone knows they are not African.
So it is interesting race people (and they are innocent) with one British parent who will stay and look as if they don’t belong. It’s dangerous, I hope nobody will be caught in this problem. Many are excellent people, think Ben Habib. I can name others who have made massive contributions to the U.K., it’s a massive problem.
November 18, 2025
@Lynn Atkinson – all fine words from one loan voice in Parliament but the majority of his 649 colleagues in the HoC are refusing or could be said to be fighting against changes to what has become the status quo in support of criminal activity. As Germany showed earlier this year it just takes the ‘Will’ to do things and it happens
November 18, 2025
He is demonstrating to the nation that there is no reason they can’t all have an MP like him. Then there would be a patriotic House.
That is our last chance. Stop hoping someone will ride in on a white horse and save you, we have to save ourselves, and it’s going to be one of two ways.
I want it to be a new House filled with people capable and able to represent the British people. There are plenty about, we need to get them elected!
November 18, 2025
PS Germany is unsalvageable. So is France. The EU is finished!
We need to stand well back so it does not take us down as it sinks into oblivion.
November 19, 2025
@Lynn Atkinson – yes agreed, a new house. From the outside the impression is it is stuffed full of freeloading minions of gang leaders were the do the bidding of the ‘gang’ boss and not those that empower and pay them – their electorate!
November 18, 2025
I watched the speech, but I am not hopeful that anything will change. The Home Secretary may have good intentions, but she will be blocked at every turn. The Human Rights gang will find plenty of excuses as to why people should be allowed to stay.
The idea should be to stop people coming over the Channel, but that is not going to happen. I don’t know what the end result will be, but I fear for this Country, and generations still to come,
November 18, 2025
It astounds me that MPs do not see what is happening in many parts of the world and therefore simply couldn’t care less about what might subsequently happen to their own future generations.
November 18, 2025
Good morning,
Let us be clear. There are two forms of immigration. Legal and illegal. One is whereby permission is granted, and the other whereby it is not. Legal immigration can and should be stopped, unless it is from a country like the USA where those entering are less likely to absconed. Illegal immigration I have covered numerous times. To reduce it one only has to disincetivise it. Stop giving them free stuff.
But we all know this is deliberate. We all know we are being gas lighted.
November 18, 2025
We should take some decent, wealthy or hard working skilled immigrants who can support themselves, contribute and are unlikely to be criminals or a net cost to the country up to a reasonable level. Ones who are likely to integrate easily and very unlikely to become terrorists.
We should we refuse all the rest about 95% of them – is this really that difficult to grasp?
Clearly she is just saying a few of the right things but is still not doing anything. Her party, the ECHR, the lawyers on legal aid…will not let her take any real actions. She cannot tel the judges what to do other than by passing new laws and leaving the ECHR but does not seems to realise this.
November 18, 2025
Yesterday the Home Secretary made the migration problem even worse. She legalised illegal migration by offering Government approved routes for asylum seekers (aka ‘safe routes’). Once here the arrivals can work and learn! It’s another honey pot for migrants from around the world to come here.
With these convenient routes it is likely we will see more migration now not less. I don’t believe it’s going to stop the boats either as intended. There will still be thousands of chancers every year on top of the new approved routes.
She needs to declare a State of Emergency so that remedial measures can be taken. She needs to negotiate and pay to set up returns agreements with every country the migrants are coming from. She needs to pressurise and encourage the French to block the boats from leaving their coastline, eg floating sea barriers with strategic policing (obviously those who’s lives would genuinely be in danger if returned can stay). She needs to leave the ECHR so there is the permanent ability to deal with any such illegal migration issues as they arise. She needs to cap legal migration at its long-term average of about net 50k per year so our economy and way of life can regain its equilibrium.
The Home Secretary is not offering anything like this. I don’t know what the Labour backbench are complaining about. Yesterday was Springtime for Global Marxism.
November 18, 2025
Precisely. All they are proposing to do is change the invasion from illegal over the channel to legal via safe routes …. and adjusting the incentives.
A large majority of the British population wants the invasion STOPPED, not legalised.
November 18, 2025
Are these legislators stupid? If people are refused a “safe route” they will automatically use the current illegal route and as for sending them back to France or their original country, why would any of these want them back?
November 18, 2025
Exactly! Only high quality, net benefit, non criminal, immigration please.
November 18, 2025
I do believe that our UK parliament is now the most ‘woke’ in the world and completely out of touch with its people
November 18, 2025
One benefit of legal routes is that the applicants can no longer claim to have been trafficked and apply for protection which 80% of them have at present.
Safe and legal routes can be better policed and only truly oppressed should get through. It should be a positive. (But won’t be as it will not be run robustly).
November 18, 2025
Narrow Shoulders, the proof will be in the numbers going forward. The boat numbers are about 40k per year. If the total number via ‘safe routes’ plus the ongoing boat crossings is > 40k per year then Mahmood has failed.
We need to end illegal migration not permit it.
November 18, 2025
As a sovereign nation the UK has developed its legal & justice system over nearly 1000 years, we wrote the book on justice, why on earth do we subject ourselves to another supposedly higher court – the ECHR. It is not needed and it interferes with the operation of UK justice system, including the control of illegal immigration. We must leave the ECHR immediately.
November 18, 2025
Indeed the ECHR is hugely damaging and has judges who have no interest in the interests of the UK perhaps have never even visited the UK even for a weekend!
Then again the list of appalling errors by our legal and justice system is vast. Lucy Letby denied even an appeal, the Birmingham 6, Guilford 4, the rape gangs, the two tier sentencing council, the failure to grant vaccine health statistics released, the sick joke multi million Covid enquiry. The Lucy Connoly vaat over sentencing and refused appeals. Still even denied the right to travel to give evidence to Congress.
November 18, 2025
@James Morley – the ECHR is retained in the UK because our own democratically elected Legislators are unable to do their duty as empowered and paid to by their electorate. Its a situation of keeping the UK’s Legal profession going funded by the UK Taxpayer.
It is primarily a case of there is no ‘Will’ from within the UK Parliament take take up its duties do their job and protect those they pretend to represent.
Germany is signed up to the ECHR and with just having walk across boarders has stopped more criminals entering already than we get in in a single year. This follows of from Italy(also signed up to the ECHR) also having the same ‘Will’ to stop funding the trade, Italy ignored the ECHR and has been sending these criminals back by the boat load. These Countries are stopping and returning criminals, the UK invites them in, it is a case of ‘Will’
November 18, 2025
@James Morley – I agree the imposition of the ECHR is an out of step process of an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy ‘dictating’ to democratically elected representatives. All laws affecting our lives in a sovereign democracy should be created, then just as importantly be able to be amended or repealed by that same democratic process. It is not for the unelected, unaccountable to dictate and oppress a people against its will
November 18, 2025
Sir John,
I think it would be fair to say every thinking member of society is sceptical about the current Home Secretary’s ability or even her desire to oversee sensible controlled migration.
The immigration crisis has two fundamental components.
1. Legitimate migrants who have applied and been granted permission to reside in the UK
2. Illegitimate migrants who enter the country via unofficial means on boats planes and lorries.
The first group is where the major problem lies. The past accommodation of too many new residents based on the a concocted need for workers is by far the biggest problem.
When migration is imagined and discussed the image in peoples minds is an oversized rubber dinghy carrying unknown characters across the Channel and into state funded accommodation and social support without end.
That group clearly should not even exist as a problem and is simple to resolve, but no government over the past twenty five years has chosen to do so.
The main group of excess migrants unwanted but championed and encouraged to come, are the problem. They are here because it was believed in government circles and supported by simple economic models that more people in the population is a good thing, no matter who they are.
That ready acceptance of unknown persons simply to make the population numbers rise, is where the issue is.
The growth in population in simplistic terms i.e. in politicians minds is, more people means higher GDP and higher activity in the economy. The social repercussions, such as housing shortages, pressures on social services and health care, or infrastructure overloads, are dismissed as ide issues of no consequence.
If anyone imagines Shabana Mamood a barrister and our current Home Secretary will reverse the excessive inflows, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.
November 18, 2025
Mamood even talks of “stopping benefit unless they need them” she want to retain the ECHR plus even if she did actually even try to DO anything remotely serious to LABOUR MPs will stop her.
November 18, 2025
Until physical measures are taken nothing will make a difference.
November 18, 2025
She said that the numbers coming by legal routes would be capped. How ? Do the assorted international treaties allow that ? I doubt it. Anyway I suspect her backbenchers and Lord Hermer will so water down her bill that all that is left of it are the legal routes.
November 18, 2025
Mahmood has come out with a load of waffle that will never become law. It’s comedy gold to think Labour can or even want to control immigration. They will vote it all down with the help of the Greens and Lib Dems.
Illegal immigration will only be stopped by returning the boats to the French beaches. No one in government has the cojones to do it.
Yesterday I read that while thousands of immigrants come into Britain (usually to work in the NHS apparently) We have circa 4 million people on Universal credit with no requirement to seek employment. The politics of the madhouse.
November 18, 2025
I believe they know that the issue of illegal immigration is going to destroy the Labour Government as comprehensively as the issue of legal mass immigration destroyed the last Not-a-Conservative one.
But do I think that will transform into meaningful action to stop it? No. They’ll make all kinds of “promises” and some insignificant but high profile changes to “the rules” but all they intend doing is changing the importation of hundreds of thousands of welfare-claiming migrants from illegal to legal via so-called “safe routes.”
There is no reason why we should accept any “refugees” from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. There are plenty of safe countries for them to go to in their own continents.
November 18, 2025
Until we leave the ECHR we are fiddling with the deckchairs on the Titanic.
What chance to steer round it?
November 18, 2025
Agreed, just tinkering around the edges with even more confusing and complex rules and regulation, a lawyers delight.
Simple, no permission, no entry, and removed immediately, which should be easy with the boat people, because we know where they came from.
It would only take a week of real enforcement, and the boats would reduce to a trickle and if France wants to be difficult and refuses to accept them, then do not offer a taxi service from halfway. and stop French fishing in our waters.
November 18, 2025
Agreed, just tinkering around the edges with even more confusing and complex rules and regulation, a lawyers delight.
Simple, no permission, no entry, and removed immediately, which should be easy with the boat people, because we know where they came from.
It would only take a week of real enforcement, and the boats would reduce to a trickle, and if France wants to be difficult and refuses to accept them, then do not offer a taxi service from halfway, and stop French fishing in our waters.
Why is it that our politicians are so weak.
November 18, 2025
Correct
November 18, 2025
“I do not believe the Home Secretary will sort out migration“ Indeed I do not think she will even try all just hot air. Even if she did try to she will be stopped by the Kier, the Labour Party and their dire MPs. She even talk about “more legal routes” this is hardly going to decrease overall immigration levels is it? They will just get a boat if they have no chance by any legal route anyway. Or a boat after refusal.
November 18, 2025
Instead of wasting money giving it to the French, give it to the Raise the Colours lads who are stopping far more illegal crossings. Their efforts show just what can be done if there’s the will to sort this problem out.
November 18, 2025
Does anyone other than our Home Secretary.
November 18, 2025
Does she?
November 18, 2025
Indeed – they will just bypass any rules now being established here and the lawyers will continue to use the ECHR to keep the illegals coming.
Given the actions the Home secretary took in supporting immigrants, not so long ago, it is hard to believe that her measures will be watertight.
Socialist commentators argue that you can’t simply get out of the ECHR as that would mean renegotiating some important treaties. It would be nice to understand this better, because leaving the ECHR is the ultimate dream of many, given how many times rulings have worked against us.
Reply As a sovereign country we can simply withdraw from the Treaty
November 18, 2025
reply to reply…exactly
November 18, 2025
Thanks – understood, but what treaties would have to be re-established and how much of a pain is that?
November 18, 2025
ukandeu.ac.uk 15/05/2024 ‘Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights’.
November 18, 2025
No treaties, therefore no pain. South Africa withdrew unilaterally from the UN Migration Treaty overnight. Nobody said boo.
November 18, 2025
And become as sovereign as Belarus and Russia … oh how brilliant the perceptive intelligence of those ‘dreamers’.
In her time as SoS Ms Braverman had said it is quite possible for the UK to adapt its migration laws without getting out the ECHR.
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have been calling for changes in the ECHR (which BTW covers 46 countries.)
Couldn’t it be easier for the UK to join those nine countries in their efforts to update the ECHR ?
Reply As sovereign as Australia, New Zealand, USA. Withdrawing from ECGR allows UK to set its own human rights standards without having to keep foreign criminals here.
November 18, 2025
Why should Australia, New Zealand, and the USA be parts of the European CHR?
Can’t you be better than that? Frankly you’re ridiculous.
Reply Go to another site you like . You said not being in ECHR control would make us like Belorus forgetting most democratic countries worldwide are not in ECHR. It is you being ridiculous.
November 19, 2025
Why should “Human Rights” be legalistically linked to the continent we happen to be a part of?
Our obvious and strongest link is with the Anglosphere …. not the former Communist, Fascist and slightly more benign authoritarian governmental systems (ie France) of the continent.
November 18, 2025
The Belarus, Russia old chestnut. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. All seem to manage without foreign so called judges interfering in domestic matters and are all better off than we are.
November 18, 2025
May I say that it was refreshing to hear tough talk on immigration from a government in power with measures to deal with large numbers of them. Rwanda was an initiative but applied to very few even if the legal challenges could be overcome.
However, is it all talk. As you say Sir John when is the legislation coming forward and when does the 5 year right to stay stop.
Anyone arriving illegally should be immediately incarcerated and the asylum application should not be decided based upon their voluntary decision to be trafficked, That should be reserved for anyone found in Eastern European run brothels not those who chose to pay to get in a dinghy.
Our establishment needs to adopt the principle that those arriving need to be treated as criminals until they prove otherwise. Habeas corpus does not apply to dinghies of arrivals as it does to individuals.
I am weary of Charites and worthies espousing that these people are fleeing oppression. The default is that they are proven criminals otherwise they would not be here.
November 18, 2025
Missing from the speech yesterday was a commitment to work with European countries to amend the ECHR for modern communications and travel techniques with regard to refugees and to leave the UN refugee convention until that too is rewritten for modern times
November 18, 2025
Just leave both. Why delay or make our actions conditional on the actions of other countries with different attitudes.
Poland has NO asylum seekers so has no problem with the current Treaties.
November 18, 2025
Indeed the only migrants in Poland are from Western Ukraine, ie ethnic Poles.
November 18, 2025
NS :
The Rwanda scheme did not need to be very big. Firstly because it would truly act as a deterrent and secondly because all the economic migrants, once they found themselves in Rwanda, would immediately go back to their home countries. We’ve even seen asylum seekers returning to their home countries for holidays.
November 18, 2025
Clever of Kemi saying that she will help the Government get the changes through. That will confirm the Labour backbenchers in their opposition and make Labour even more unpopular.
November 18, 2025
We need cross party majorities for crucial issues.
They can beat a Government majority and demonstrate that
‘Government proposes, Parliament decides’.
That’s the power of democracy.
November 18, 2025
In any event, the question might be, will the lady still be Home Secretary if Starmer falls – as fall he will. A new, hard left PM may have very different views on migration.
November 18, 2025
WHILE we are being distracted by the theatre of the Home Secretary and the failings of the BBC now under the full floodlight, the UN is busy coordinating a massive attack on our liberties. Piece by piece the digital cage is taking shape.
Already we see evidence of the march to a digital future in actual practice:
· In Brussels, large-scale pilots of the European Digital Identity Wallet are already underway, with every EU member state obliged to issue one by 2026.
· In Mexico, the biometric CURP is law – fingerprints, facial scans, and signatures stored in a centralised database under state control.
· Canada has just approved a national standard that allows banks and governments to integrate financial data with digital IDs.
· In India, booking a train ticket will soon require Aadhaar authentication — proof that a number, not a person, is what ultimately travels.
Different continents, same blueprint. Total surveillance disguised as progress. And now, the UN and Gates Foundation are pushing this model into 50 countries by 2028.
Let’s not imagine that we will escape this. Our own oppressive Government already has plans for a new digital age — and worse. They are not afraid to impose it on us either, our considerations will not be taken into account without a massive show of opposition.
November 18, 2025
The Indian System produced by Richi Sunak’s father in laws company.
November 18, 2025
“International law” and democracy work against each other
November 18, 2025
Well, international law and treaty has never been made for the benefit of the working class plebs
November 18, 2025
Neither has any democratic authority.
November 18, 2025
I don’t believe the home Secretary wants to sort out migration. She is an international socialist as is our Minister of Energy who is a member of the Fabian Society and our PM who, until he became an MP, was a senior member of the Fabian Society. Neither of course do our civil service as exemplified by Gus O’Donnell who, when Cabinet Secretary, said in 2011: “When I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration … I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare”. Yesterday’s announcements are all smoke and mirrors and will have no more effect than the “smash the gangs” and the “one in one out” catch phrases. Rather than declaring an emergency over illegal migration across the Channel and building tented, guarded encampments to hold the unidentified young men of fighting age (instead of providing luxury accommodation and the freedom to roam our streets) the Home Secretary will continue with the current set up which provides a safe (boats escorted across the Channel by French and then UK vessels) and legal (via the ECHR) route into the UK for any migrant who wants to come to the UK for any purpose. You would think the international socialists would consider it immoral to use this method of immigration to deprive poorer nations of their surgeons, anaesthetists, engineers, IT experts and entrepreneurs? As well as leaving their more vulnerable relatives behind.
November 18, 2025
Spot on. Gus O’Donnell has done wonders for the welfare of British children, who number in the ‘international welfare’ set too.
November 19, 2025
But with the criminal migrants, we’re not depriving the 3rd world of their surgeons, anaesthetists, engineers, IT experts and entrepreneurs, are we.
Those people are applying for a visa and are coming legally (in small numbers) along with hundreds of thousands of low-skill, low-wage migrants, semi-educated students and their dependants.
Etc ed
November 18, 2025
The Home Secretary is up the creek without a paddle. Just listening to the backbenchers after her speech, there’s no chance of success. Junior Parliamentarians have no experience of life, zero common sense and I just wonder how they answer the worries of their constituents, who surely oppose mass immigration.
November 18, 2025
Can we please talk about “immigration”. “Migration” is what birds do. They fly here for the summer then go back to Africa for the winter.
November 19, 2025
Your wish can be easily gratified; the immigration talk is for the birds.
November 18, 2025
A lot of conflation here – the EU nationals don’t come here as illegals because they largely obey the rules – the others originating from outside the EU have no rules and am afraid this new regulation by the Minister is not going to deter them – instead we need wartime emergency legislation to round them up or we’ll be overwhelmed. Two ways to deal with this come to mind nominate an uninhabited island up off Scotland and lodge them there as an interim second have a number of ships chartered waiting on the south coast and load them up as they come then ship them out to North Africa, West Africa or the Persian Gulf – No discussion
November 18, 2025
Isn’t it unbelievable that we have MPs who oppose any attempt to reduce illegal immigration and legal immigration? We have absorbed around 5 million people in the last twenty-five years, resulting in problems in Housing, the NHS, GP services, Welfare budgets, Employment Opportunities, more crowded cities, towns, and villages, as well as roads. Yet we have MPs, charities, and some of the legal profession who believe our borders should be open to all. We even had the incredible statement that the rights of immigrants trump the rights of people born and bred in the UK, regarding the Hotel in Epping. Increasingly, a majority of immigrants are from cultures very different from our own. If a country loses its culture, it ceases to exist.
When will MPs start serving the UK voters instead of dictating to them?
November 18, 2025
The international socialists are still arguing that the solution to illegal immigration is to open up more “safe and legal” routes. Firstly, those migrants who do not believe they would qualify for these “safe and legal” routes or wish to jump the queue will still try to enter illegally across the Channel. Secondly, those who advocate this solution are never prepared to quote a cap on the numbers so their “solution” means completely unbounded immigration. And lastly the mood of the majority in the UK has moved on from this idea to be now one of not allowing any further inward migration, whether legal or illegal, for they are recognising that if we continue to import the Third World we will become the Third World.
November 18, 2025
Visas to come to the UK should not be issued without proof of medical insurance to cover the length of the visa.
November 18, 2025
And a return ticket.
November 18, 2025
It takes more the a sound-bite headline piece by one Minister for things to ‘change’. It starts with Parliament if Parliament wanted to stop the Boats, The illegals, the Criminals from entering the Country and causing havoc, creating excessive unwarranted cost, it would have happened. If there was a ‘Will’ in Parliament to stop all this hypocrisy, it would stop today.
It is not one single Home Secretary that’s the problem, there is the whole Cabinet, the whole Government and it Prime Minster are in turn defended by the majority in Parliament. They cant work in isolation, the system doesn’t offer that opportunity. This not just the shower in Parliament today it has been the same for some 25 years, working against and fighting the people
So in a ‘nutshell’ Parliament has no ‘will’ to stop criminals invading and plundering the Nation, in fact they by their very actions are encouraging it and using our (Taxpayers Money) to do so.
Think it through Parliament is using the UK Taxpayers money to fund the activities, of criminal people smugglers and traffickers and then using UK Taxpayers money to fund the legal defence of the activity. Who do these MPs work for
November 18, 2025
A psyop. She has not included Islamic nations and the measures she has proposed will not even move the needle on those coming here.
November 18, 2025
“It is important to both reduce legal migration substantially and stop illegal.”
Bearing in mind the cultures, practices and laws of those countries and tribal areas from which the majority of migrants come I find it inexplicable that any UK female would hang up a sign saying “Refugees Welcome”.
November 18, 2025
Should we now treat all official data with a large pinch of salt?
Net migration to the UK last year was 20% lower than previously thought, according to revised figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The number, the difference between those entering and leaving the country, has been revised down by 86,000 people and now stands at 345,000 in 2024.
The driving factor behind the change is that more British nationals are thought to have emigrated in 2024 than initially recorded, with 100,000 fewer now thought to be living in the UK.
Migration peaked higher than previously thought, according to the figures, adding 944,000 to the UK population between April 2022 and March 2023. Previous estimates put the number at 906,000 by June 2023.
When challenged on the migration peak – which occurred under Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government – Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said that “once those figures came out we actually put in quite a few measures to bring immigration down”.
“But we recognise immigration was too high,” she added during a news conference ahead of next week’s budget. “It was because people took their eye off the ball, allowing bureaucrats to manage our borders – that was not what people voted for when they voted to leave the EU.”
– So more came in and more abandoned ship.
November 18, 2025
Note no ability to compare like to like….One set is up to March 2023 then June 2023. Another set for 2024 revised to 345k from 431k. ONS creative accounting.
November 19, 2025
We lost more educated, skilled and financially secure British people than they thought ….. and imported people who have no affinity to this nation and will be a drain on the economy all their lives.
A consequence of “genius” Nation-destroying policies from the Uni-Party.
November 18, 2025
you have to laugh at the bbc, reporting that net migration is not as bad as they thought… because far more brits are leaving the uk than anyone thought. so the massed exodus of our brightest, best, wealth creators is somehow something to be celebrated.
November 19, 2025
I entirely agree with JR’s points – no sign so far of any timetabling of the parliamentary legislation needed, and no mention of how the legislation will circumvent the ECHR’s stranglehold of judicial decisions in the UK.
I also agree that Mahmoud’s poor record as Justice Secretary and her past championing of the ‘Migrants Welcome’ school of non-thought does not chime with her present stance. Can she please explain her Damascene conversion? Otherwise it looks like less like policy, and more like a feint.
Moreover, as Home Office insiders quietly report, the newcomers simply abscond and disappear into the black or criminal economies as soon as they are informed of the rejection of their application, so not many will be left at the end of 20 years.
Like Labour’s social welfare ‘cuts’, these things are simply announced so as to ensure Labour MPs vote decisively against them.