Border Force cannot cope due to ‘crippling’ staff shortages

[Image: ITV News.]

[Image: ITV News.]

What are staff going to do after the Coalition government’s next wave of public service staff redundancies?

Border Force staff have told ITV News that they are unable to effectively protect the UK’s borders amid crippling staff shortages that have left morale at the agency at “rock bottom”.

They said they felt ignored and bullied into keeping quiet when they raised concerns about security.

So not only is the Coalition – Conservative and Liberal Democrat – government completely unable to reduce immigration as promised, but it has instead cut the organisation responsible for policing the immigration system until it can no longer do the job.

Theresa May will be in a proper pickle if nobody is left for her to blame.

And the government reckons there are – what? – a million or more job cuts to come?

No wonder Osborne wants to return the UK to its 1930s state.

It’s the only way the government will have a chance of performing even the most mundane functions adequately.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
warning you about the latest Coalition calamities!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

6 thoughts on “Border Force cannot cope due to ‘crippling’ staff shortages

  1. Jeffery Davies

    That whot we paid into tax pot gets larger by the day spreading
    this money round not to jobs but their mates company’s who give
    back backhanders and bribes to the tory pparty yet the workers
    havent said much on this practice yet jobs working for government’s departments
    get less but untill the whole ninty nine percent wake up to this then more cuts more
    monies given not saved to their mates jeff3

  2. Bill Kruse

    One wonders too where all these newly-unemployed people are to sign on and receive their benefit entitlements from given the number of job cuts which are due to come from the DWP itself. Osborne’s plans are the stuff of fairy stories but what can one expect from one whose sole qualification for his role as chancellor is having a rich father? What utterly bizarre turn of events could put someone so obviously unqualified in such a responsible position?

  3. philipburdekin

    Some things can be cut back in this regressing country of ours but some things just need to be left alone, it must be costing this country billions in lost taxes plus the amount of sneaking in and then costing more money so sometimes you need spend some money to save money.

  4. Thomas M

    This government needs to be voted out as soon as possible before it ruins this country. Cutting back everything is just throttling the economy. And when this government has put some money in, all it did was create a house price bubble.

    1. Bill Kruse

      I’d suggest the reason for this last is the government’s ultimate employer is the banksters and that Osborne’s attempts in the EU to preserve their bonuses, this in the face of endless evidence of their continuing illegal and antisocial behaviour, is itself evidence of what I’m saying. The big banks are insolvent and should have been broken up in the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch. They’re insolvent because in their vaults they’ve got piles of utterly worthless securitised mortgages. I’d say what you refer to is an attempt by Osborne to re-inflate the value of those mortgages and make the banks solvent again, no matter what grief this might bring to the rest of us. Osborne blatantly works for the banks, not us, but that can go in our favour as it should make it easier under international law to have all the debts he’s incurred, supposedly on our behalf, as odious, ie invalid.

Comments are closed.