Comments on immigrant benefits

This post from Dr Sai Ishaya on X:

I've been reflecting on how I engage with far-right British political slop on social media and it reminded me of Brandolini's law (The Bullshit asymmetry principle). A similar tactic used by Trump during his first campaign. It posits that the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than that needed to produce it. It's the strategic use of mis/dis-information to overwhelm the cognitive and emotional capacity of an audience. What makes this strand of British far-right politics so draining is not just the claims themselves. It’s the labour they force onto everyone else. You are often left shouting at the ghost of an argument that has already achieved its emotional response. They throw out something half-true, selectively framed, or flat-out misleading like "White working-class boys are being abandoned", "Migrants are draining the welfare state", "White British nurses can't get jobs." Each claim is packaged to sound plausible enough that you can't ignore it, but distorted enough that it collapses under scrutiny. And once it's out there, the burden is deliberately meant to shift to you. Suddenly you're the one digging up datasets, posting reports, linking studies, explaining how school attainment works, how benefit eligibility works, how NHS recruitment actually functions. You spend hours trying to restore context that they stripped away in seconds. Meanwhile the asymmetry is the point. They don't need to win the argument, they just need to flood the space with claims that require correction. It keeps people stuck in a permanent defensive crouch, reacting instead of setting the terms of the argument. While you're explaining statistics and providing "nuance", they're repeating the slogan and planting the ideas. You are doing their own work for them. Helping spread their own message.

We see it here every day e.g. Primrose’s linking to fabricated statistics from the Centre for Migration Control which isn’t a centre at all but one bloke who’s been working for Farage & Co for years, feeding his lies to right wing print and broadcast media which is only too happy to spread those lies.

Anyway, much of the money which is spend on supporting asylum seekers is coming from the ODA budget.

(If DaisyAnneReturns is reading this, she posted an interesting video link a while back from Phil Moorhouse about the lizard brain and how it functions, which is pertinent to what Dr Ishaya has said. I haven't been able to locate in Phil's YT series. It would be helpful if she was able to relink. Thanks.)

Lathyrus3

Oh thanks Doodledog. So we’re talking about all the newspapers, TV etc. The whole caboodle.

Well you can find anything you want I suppose in all of those and judge what’s true or not depending on your personal view point.

You can’t get away from the personal can you really.

No, it seems not.

Yes, I'm never sure what non-mainstream media are - narrowcasts? Niche magazines? I think the term is often used to mean messages other than those on Social Media, which are very mainstream these days, although algorithms can point them in particular directions. I'm not sure that that is technically the correct usage though.

You could also try the Byline Times, Primrose, for some real reporting.

And no, I have no idea what MSN is either.
Maybe, Main Stream Nonsense?

Lathyrus3

Oh thanks Doodledog. So we’re talking about all the newspapers, TV etc. The whole caboodle.

Well you can find anything you want I suppose in all of those and judge what’s true or not depending on your personal view point.

You can’t get away from the personal can you really.

Homes with at least one jobless foreign national account for 70% of the bill. These figures come from The Centre for Migration.

I'm not good at statistics so apologise if I'm wrong. All I know is that things like the N.H.S, housing, schools and law & order are at breaking point and general moral is low. People are desperate.

Please be more specific about your source.

If that number is coming from the Sun, Mail. Express, Telegrapgh or GB News, than it will be from the so-called Centre for Migration Control or CMC. This isn't a centre at all but one man called Robert Bates. He has been working for Farage and Tice for years and is paid to fabricate lies to feed to the media. It is misinformation and has already been exposed as such in this thread, if you care to read it.

If you can provide statistics from the DWP then fine.

Thanks for the information Graphite. I feel as if the world has left me behind. My views don't seem to align with the approved narrative. I apologise for giving misinformation, but it's really all based on my own personal experience.

How can the notion that homes with one jobless foreign national account for 70% of the bill (what bill?) come from your own experience? What experience is that?

You might live somewhere where there are many such homes, but how can you possibly know the percentage of ‘the bill’ they use? Which bill? Without residential status there will be no benefits, and probably no homes either, unless the jobless person is a dependent relative, such as an elderly parent, a child or a new mother. Are records kept about how many such people are foreign nationals? Seriously, how many people do you think are here with family who are able to get them here and house them?

Many - if not most - of us on here are ‘jobless’, as are students, stay-at-home parents, the sick, carers and so on. Are we included in ‘the bill’? Would we cost more if we were foreign nationals?

You don’t have to be good with statistics to be able to question how likely it is that claims like this are true. However much people roll on the floor laughing to show their disdain for those who point this out, a good place to start is with the source of the statement. Random claims with no sources given are less likely to be true than those that verify what they say and back it up. Anyone can state figures but that doesn’t make them true.

People’s lived experience does matter. If you have a child in a school that doesn’t have English as a majority language, or if you have an asylum hostel in your street your experience is affected by that. But how can your experience give you knowledge of the percentage of an unspecified bill paid to households with a jobless foreign national in them? That doesn’t make much sense, really.

I’ll try being more accurate with my statistics, if you try being less sarcastic and imperious.

I wouldn't concern yourself too much about your statistics, Barmcake; it is only the virtue -signallers having their quiet, very condescending, moment.

Maremia

You could also try the Byline Times, Primrose, for some real reporting.

And no, I have no idea what MSN is either.
Maybe, Main Stream Nonsense?

Ah well us ordinary people didn’t not really know the shorthand acronyms that fly about the political spheres.

We tend to live ordinary lives dealing with the world about us as it rather than sneering from on high.

Doodle dog kindly explained to me what MSM was.

I’m grateful that at least someone doesnt hold ordinary people in contempt.

Ah well us ordinary people didn’t not really know the shorthand acronyms that fly about the political spheres.

Is this some sort of inverted snobbery 🤔

MaizieD

^Ah well us ordinary people didn’t not really know the shorthand acronyms that fly about the political spheres.^

Is this some sort of inverted snobbery 🤔

It’s a kind of irritation at the superior sneering attitude at this ignorant person doesn’t understand the shorthand that we informed superior people use.

No need to sneer. Just put me right like Doodledog did.

and a despair at what it reveals about the attitude to ordinary people who are mint one the informed elite who know best.

If that’s inverted snobbery I guess I’m guilty of it.

are not one of

barmcake

I’ll try being more accurate with my statistics, if you try being less sarcastic and imperious.

It's a deal! When shall we start?

If we haven't started yet, I'll quickly mention that being accurate with statistics is one thing, and talking utter hogwash about '70% of the bill' and claiming you are speaking from 'experience' sounds depressingly like ignorance or propaganda though. I wasn't even being sarcastic.

easybee I don't expect an answer, really, but what is virtue-signalling about asking which bill is being referred to? How are we supposed to understand what 'households with a jobless foreign national account for 70% of the bill' means if we don't know which bill is being discussed? Do you know what 'virtue-signalling' means?

I think everyone knows what virtue signalling is and it’s seen all the time on forums unfortunately.

It doesn’t matter how many lofty and wordy posts are copied on here from odd bods on X about right wing this and that, the facts of the matter are that immigration had to come down, and fair play to this government they have been working behind the scenes to crack down on student visas and other which is helping.What is really difficult and worrying to many areas of the country is the number of asylum seekers, lots of young men from cultures ( in the main) vastly different to ours who are wandering around with little money and nothing to do.
It’s bound to cause concern and there have been sexual assaults on women young girl and rapes.
The blame lies squarely on successive governments who needed to house them in ex military bases while they were having their claims assessed.Clean basic housing with a room for indoor sports, and a few rooms to socialise in.No wandering around outside the base.

Just seen the quote regarding “Dr Sai Ishaya” above.

Never heard of him, can find out nothing about him so would hardly call him a reliable source.

Oreo

I think everyone knows what virtue signalling is and it’s seen all the time on forums unfortunately.

Yes, I think I know what it is, and it is not asking for clarification of a nonsensical 'statistic', which is why I am asking.

Maremia and Lathyrus3

As of now, February 2026, asylum seekers are generally banned from using taxis for medical appointments.

I say "generally" as apparently they will still be authorized in "exceptional circumstances" - e.g. physical disabilities or chronic illness.
However, these require direct Home Office sign-off now.

I have no idea how the sign-off works.

Richard Murphy’s latest video Why People Are Angry in Britain is to the point about what is happening and that can be done. The answer is not to turn to the far-right.

I urge people to watch it. You can click on the More button underneath, scroll down and select read transcript if you prefer:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hAIr1cgZI

It starts:

People in the UK are angry. Inequality is driving that. That's obvious. And some people are turning as a result to the far right. We know that is true. And you can see why. The anger which people are suffering has very real causes. But my argument is that only a politics of care can address them and that the far right can't. And that's what this video is all about. Let's be clear. The left cannot dismiss the far right by just saying ignore them. The far right are hearing and responding to as well as exploiting real concerns. Real concerns created by the neoliberal politics of destruction of the single transferable party. And let's be clear what I mean by the single transferable party. The single transferable party has been in power in the UK for a long time. It is the Conservatives. It is the Labour Party. It is in part the SMP in Scotland although the membership are most definitely not aligned with what the leadership has been doing. The problem with the single transferable party to which the Liberal Democrats are also aligned of course because they were in coalition government with the conservatives at one period of time and delivered austerity is that it is committed to the politics of destruction and that is what neoliberalism is. It's the politics of household analogy. It's the politics that has delivered austerity and you cannot ignore that fact because these are the policies which have created the situation which is giving rise to the anger as a consequence of the feeling of failure that people are suffering. So I am saying we can't dismiss the feeling of voters about the fact that this has happened because it's a reality. What we now have to do is understand people's anger because anger without explanation becomes hate and hate becomes dangerous politics. And that is my precise concern. So what am I going to do in this video? I'm going to look at why people are angry and then say what we can do about it.?

I’ve picked out this part as pertinent to this discussion.

The sixth cause is fear and misinformation. Let's be clear about this. There is a massive amount of fear and misinformation. There has been a deliberate program put forward of blaming migrants for the structural problems that exist in this country. Let's not pretend otherwise. We've seen it in our newspapers. The Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and the others who make up the gutter press of the UK have done this for years. They have blamed people who have never created the problems in this country and who have in many cases filled the gaps which would otherwise have appeared. Culture wars have been used to replace real policy and social media has amplified anger. The far right has offered simple answers, but simple answers to complex problems are lies. All of this is about promoting fear and much of it is based upon misinformation, but that's not by chance. That's deliberate and that is a cause of anger in its own right. So that one is not based upon reality. It's based upon myths, but nonetheless, it's real.

The seventh cause is the media and manufactured fear. I'm building on the previous idea here, but bringing in quite specifically now the fact that we live in a world where there are multiple demands on our attention and where those who want it know that fear is profitable. As a result, they deliberately provoke social media outrage and newspapers scapegoat migrants. And as a consequence, we are seeing this pernicious attitude that I previously noted. But there is more to it than that. Advertising, as I have often argued, is deliberately designed to make us unhappy with our lives. This isn't by accident. They want us to buy whatever they're offering, to supposedly make our lies fulfilled when at present, apparently, they are not. And that is what I'm really worried about. This is the sense that we are missing out that the media deliberately creates which has undermined people's sense of well-being. Even when if truth be told many people are materially better off than they have been for a long time. But that sense of difference that sense of inadequacy this sense that the media has created that there is a them and us with so much of the media focusing upon the them who have everything and the us who have little are ignored. That is what has created dissatisfaction, anger, and people who want someone to blame for the fact they feel that they are being left behind. A frightened population is easier to manipulate, and that is what the media has created.

Graphite
Thanks again!

There’s something in what Richard Murphy says, particularly in the first long paragraph.
In the second I think he credits the media and advertising with maybe more power than it possesses.Advertising has always been used to show consumers what they could have if only they have the money.Most people are canny enough to understand that and not be enraged that they can’t afford a house with a 30 ft kitchen or a Caribbean cruise.
People are angry, but mainly at successive governments as he says.They’re the ones who chose the policies and ran the country.

Thank you NotSpaghetti

And Graphite

Oh he is so close, so close.
It is an utter failure of the left, rather than a success of the right. And he is repeating those failures in his post.
Blame the media, or social media because the people who have turned to the right can't possibly have minds of their own, they can't possibly have looked at the progressives and thought dear God not more of this nonsense.
And fir good measure throw in the word culture war as if that is something solely undertaken by the right.