Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.

The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).

I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.

So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.

I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.

The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.

I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.

This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.